iL i aw ( C VV9lc9lO LOLI OLNOHOL 4O ALISHSAINN € t i a i) yy =A Move ea ay i i 5 » a ? — ta itv vol bol ORICAL STUDIES PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ‘DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY FROM THE INCOME OF THE HENRY WARREN TORREY FUND VOLUME XXII HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES I. The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of America, 1638-1870. By W. E. B. DuBois, Ph.D., Editor of “* The Crisis.”’ 8vo. $1.50 net. Il. The Contest over the Ratification of the Federal Constitution in Massachusetts. By S. B. Harding, Ph.D., Professor of Euro- pean History in Indiana University. 8vo. $1.25 net. Ill. A Critical Study of Nullification in South Carolina. By D. F. Houston, A.M., LL.D., Secretary of Agriculture. 8vo. $1.25 net. IV. Nominations for Elective Office in the United States. By Frederick W. Dallinger, A.M., late Member of the Massachusetts Senate. 8vo, $1.50 net. V. A Bibliography of British Municipal His- tory. Including Gilds and Parliamentary Representation. By Charles Gross, Ph.D., late Gurney Professor of History and Politi- cal Science in Harvard University. 8vo. $2.50 net. VI. The Liberty and Free Soil Parties in the Northwest. By Theodore Clarke Smith, Ph.D., Professor of History in Williams College. 8vo. $1.75 net. VII. The Provincial Governor in the English Colonies of North America. By Evarts Boutell Greene, Ph.D., Professor of History in the University of Illinois. 8vo. $1.50 net. VIII. The County Palatine of Durham. A Study in Constitutional History. By G. T. Lapsley, Ph.D., Fellow of Trinity Col- lege, Cambridge. 8vo. $2.00 net. IX. The Anglican Episcopate and the Amer- ican Colonies. By Arthur Lyon Cross, Ph.D., Professor of European History in the University of Michigan. 8vo. $2.50 net. X. The Administration of the American Rev- olutionary Army. By Louis Clinton Hatch, Ph.D. 8vo. $1.50 net. XI. The Civil Service and the Patronage. By Carl Russell Fish, Ph.D., Professor of American History in the University of Wis- consin. 8vo. $2.00 net. XII. The Development of Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts. By C. A. Duni- way, Ph.D., President of the University of Wyoming. 8vo. $1.50 net. XIII. The Seigniorial System in Canada. By W. B. Munro, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Municipal Government in Harvard Uni- versity. 8Vvo. $2.00 net. XIV. The Frankpledge System. By William Alfred Morris, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of English History in the University of Cal- ifornia. 8vo. $1.50 net. XV. The Public Life of Joseph Dudley. By Everett Kimball, Ph.D., Associate Professor of History in Smith College. 8vo. $2.00 net. XVI. Mémoire de Marie Caroline, Reine de Naples. Edited by Robert Matteson Johnston, A.M., Assistant Professor of Modern History in Harvard University. 8vo. $2.00 net. XVII. The Barrington-Bernard Correspon- dence. Edited by Edward Channing, Ph.D., McLean Professor of Ancient and Modern History in Harvard University. 8vo. $2.00 net. XVIII. The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Mag- nificent. By Albert Howe Lybyer, Ph.D., Associate Professor of History in the Uni- versity of Illinois. 8vo. $2.00 net. XIX. The Granger Movement. By S. J. Buck, Research Associate in History in the University of Illinois. 8vo. $2.00 net. XX. Burgage Tenure in Mediaeval England. By Morley de Wolf Hemmeon, Ph.D., some- time Austin Teaching Fellow in Harvard University. 8vo. $1.50 net. XXI. An Abridgment of the Indian Affairs contained in four folio volumes, transacted in the colony of New York, from the year 1678 to the year 1751, by Peter Wraxall. Edited with an introduction by Charles Howard Mcllwain, Ph.D., Assistant Pro- fessor of History in Harvard University. 8vo. $2.00 net. XXII. English Field Systems. By Howard Levi Gray, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of History in Harvard University. 8vo. $2.75 net. HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U.S.A. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Microsoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/englishfieldsystOOgrayuoft nye # ee ong Saree ya BF @> efi Ths ie i ; DAs . » 5 on” P yar s ‘ ‘Te te wee ots “4 : et f ‘ y al, » ‘ Z : : ay ied iF < ve é O “ aia be t 4 y oi - << 4 dj Li » x ’ | ‘ 5 “ 9 ‘ i ae | Y = = i ‘ . j 7 © aw wy \ 7 : ava a ' ARG te - 7 ry a . ‘ ‘ot ae % i - + ‘ : y iy - S ‘ = . Fi é A 5 ~s ’ i ve ~ ' : R ‘ ¢ = “ " i i eh We ¥ ~ J een , a v + Lj ; : i > , \ i ' +5 wy ’ ‘ 1 ; « j j i - od a f ae ' +. a - . 4 . ‘a ’ n - ' 4 ‘a r aH « s” ‘ 7 ; ; A: BY Naw Vict te t HOWARD LEVI GRAY, PH.D. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY ages ae yy ed % gts ORE EEY ae Bi Sacre gees j vi LIBRA | CAMBRIDGE Ka HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRES LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD OxrorD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1915 gee? onde Sal be fe ah cali _ DS WN edly COPYRIGHT, 1915 HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS \ LIBRAF | j X patel e - Y= eel 3 ; Wedvy F : Fo * y zl oF : \ q \. ay, 6 ¥ 4 : / [2 Oat, led el eval Ole. For introductions which have given me access to many of the documents cited in this volume I am indebted to the Rev. A. H. Johnson of All Souls, Oxford, and to Mr. Hubert Hall of the Public Record Office. The custodians of various collections of records have been most courteous, notably those in charge of the British Museum, the Bodleian library, the Public Record Office, the archives of the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church, Canter- bury, and the estate documents at Holkham Hall. Messrs. J. M. Davenport and J. R. Symonds put at my disposal the enclosure awards of Oxfordshire and Herefordshire respectively. In making revisions and in correcting proof I have relied upon the skill and care of Miss A. F. Rowe of Cambridge. Professors C. H. Haskins and E. F. Gay of Harvard read the unfinished text and offered valuable suggestions; in particular I am under heavy obligation to Professor Gay, whose unfailing encouragement and generous assistance have made possible the publication of these chapters. HA... 'G; CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, August, 1915. ee oe WM hed * = * - ~ a . rp a) f< en © oe + Rae bbs he ehh esr dra aioe f , ie bs ae he iy A : ee . CONTENTS PAGE Pate ODUCIIONG 484 UEee SR et CMA, OES AMAA 2 oat 3 CHAPTER I am TwoO- AND yeHREE-BTELD:SYSTEMp Ase one XeGasis ys 17 CHAPTER II THE EARLIER HISTORY OF THE TWo- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM . 50 CHAPTER III EARLY IRREGULAR FIELDS WITHIN THE MIDLAND AREA .... . 83 CHAPTER IV THE Later History OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM IN OXFORDSHIRE AND EEEREKORDSHERE fa) eye, foo vi eek Batre. Tatham oti ee 10g CHAPTER V Bre EElLMmc SYVSTEMMae eal. LE nA vorwae a oN! 157 CHAPTER VI THe INFLUENCE OF THE CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND ...... 206 CHAPTER VII MRERD AR ISICNTE TSH SONS MEME er a le i 272 CHAPTER VIII EEE AST CAG EEA ONGTEM cf ny Faye Sth we Ke weed, Sa peeee 305 CHAPTER IX SEE PEGONAGE SPARED Go DNASENG cate Seek ties. SRO ge eee 355 CHAPTER X RESUMES SAND: CONPMOMERES! <° ya. soe pieces! OR we 403 vl CONTENTS APPENDIX I A. EXTRACTS FROM A SURVEY OF KINGTON, WILTSHIRE B. EXTRACTS FROM A SURVEY OF HANDBOROUGH, OXFORDSHIRE C. SUMMARIES OF TUDOR AND JACOBEAN SURVEYS WHICH ILLUS- TRATE NORMAL Two- AND THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS . APPENDIX II EVIDENCE, LARGELY EARLY, BEARING UPON THE EXTENT OF THE Two- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM APPENDIX III SUMMARIES OF TUDOR AND JACOBEAN SURVEYS WHICH ILLUSTRATE IRREGULAR FIELDS WITHIN THE AREA OF THE TwoO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM APPENDIX IV PARLIAMENTARY ENCLOSURES IN OXFORDSHIRE APPENDIX V EXTRACTS FROM THE SURVEY OF AN ESTATE LYING IN NEW- CHURCH, BILSINGTON, AND ROMNEY MArsH, KENT APPENDIX VI SUMMARIES OF TUDOR AND JACOBEAN SURVEYS WHICH ILLUSTRATE IRREGULAR TOWNSHIP-FIELDS IN THE BASIN OF THE LOWER THAMES INDEX . 421 430 437 450 510 536 543 549 561 MAPS Map of England and Wales, showing Important Places re- ferred to and the Boundaries of the Two- and Three-Field SWVSUTS AP Dee a PR, ce ae .. . Frontispiece . Sketch of the Tithe Map of the Township of Chalgrove, Ox- TOTASHICEN FROAmIe Sh ABO STUNG uk se es eae . Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the Township of Croxton, JaincolnshireseerStome. Peres ME me Ce se meh Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the Stee of Stow, Lin- COlNSHINE Me ECON eine Semmes Ss ke kh 1 ARR BOS Sketch of a Map of Padbury, FA ancient EGOD spe 2 emclosuner Mapoh Oxtordshiresa.dy.!. 2 Fc jyap ets wars Mera: . Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the ae of ene Oxtordshites=ArSSor a, Sac) OR ee . Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the is Risbuey Division of Stoke IPTIOR SE CLELOLaS MILE. Lom alas Whee Lond see tae ee ade ae Cs Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the Township of Holmer, PIC REROROS MATE 3 co Saas Bie fentiel os caste ited es lel Aap Tey ey ae ab ERE Sketch of the Enclosure ae of the Parish of Marden, Here- LOLASMIRG CUOLON a. ole foes Ae MeihaN aati ie ta Ba at . Sketch of a Townland in eat Ireland, shorn the Hold- imesof three Tenants. 1845" 252.55 25 23. . Plan of an Estate of All Souls College, Oxford, ine i in the Townships of Newington and Upchurch, Kent. 15093 . Plan of an Estate in the Township of Buxton, Norfolk. 1714 . . Plan of an Estate in the Gyr of aay Norfolk. TTT taeiegs Wha ate ai OUP ey ER i Pe UT a aE TSH cS) gt Gok Te ab taice pone staat Bees Sal a TS 8 . Plan of the Open Fields of Weasenham, Norfolk, showing the Location of George Elmdon’s Holding. 1600 ....... . Sketch of a Map of the Township of Holkham, Norfolk, show- INS i te wE MERC OUTSES wT GOO" ji) * Nevertheless, it serves to give a general idea of the extent and location of such arable fields as were enclosed by act of parliament. In view of the inadequate treatment of the enclosure movement after the days of James I, an attempt will be made in one of the following chapters to outline a more satisfactory method of study- ing it. The later enclosure history of two English counties will 1 “Tnclosures in England in the Sixteenth Century,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1903, Xvii. 576-597; “The Inquisitions of Depopulation in 1517 and the Domesday of Inclosures,’’ Royal Hist. Soc., Trans., new series, 1900, xiv. 231-303; “The Midland Revolt and the Inquisitions of Depopulation of 1607,” ibid., 1904, xvill. 195-244. He concludes, “ The specific inclosure movement . . reveals itself as one of comparatively small beginnings, gradually gaining force through the sixteenth century and continuing with probably little check through- out the seventeenth century, until it was absorbed in the wider inclosure activity of the eighteenth century ”’ (“‘ Inclosures in England,” p. 590). 2 E. M. Leonard, “ The Inclosure of Common Fields in the Seventeenth Cen- tury,” Royal Hist. Soc., Trans., new series, 1905, xix. 101-146. 3 Cf. below, pp. 107, 110, 138. 4 E. C. K. Gonner, “‘ The Progress of Inclosure during the Seventeenth Cen- tury,” English Historical Review, 1908, xxiii. 477-501; expanded into Common Land and Inclosure, London, 1912. 5 Gilbert Slater, The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of Common Fields London, 1907. Cf. below, p. 111, n. 2. § Chapter IV, below. 12 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS be examined in some detail, not only for the purpose of ascertain- ing the extent to which open arable fields persisted within their borders, but also in the hope of discovering what systems of tillage were practiced at the time of enclosing. In so far as it is possible to determine whether these were improvements upon old methods, and whether any relationship existed between them and the tendency toward enclosure, new light will have been thrown upon the history of English farming. The study of field systems, while it should prove conducive to a knowledge of the phases of agricultural development, is, as has been indicated, related to another aspect of English history. Since the structure and tillage of township fields have roots far in the past, the subject is one that reflects the usages and characteristics of primitive society. For this reason it furnishes acceptable information about the groups of settlers whose fusion in early Anglo-Saxon days resulted in the formation of the English people. Written records of that period being few, investigations and inferences like those which Meitzen made for the continent are pertinent for England. To such the later chapters of this volume are in a measure devoted. Within the sphere of agrarian studies it is possible to direct attention to types of settlement and to units of land measure as well as to field systems. To the first of these topics no such study has been given in England as Meitzen and Schliiter have bestowed upon Germany.! Maitland’s remarks and Vinogradoff’s examination of Essex and Derbyshire are the only approaches to the subject, and the latter is concerned with the size rather than the structure of village settlement.? Units of land measurement, however, have to some extent been considered in two important recent works, whose authors have hazarded certain inferences as to Celtic and Roman influences.? Relative to the subject of 1 Otto Schliiter, Siedlungskunde des Thales der Unstrut von der sachlenburger Pforte bis zur Miindung, Halle, 1896. 2 F. W. Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, three Essays in the Early History of England (Cambridge, 1897), pp. 15-16; Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, pp. 269-273. 3 F. Seebohm, Customary Acres and their Historical Importance, London, 1914; G. J. Turner, A Calendar of the Feet of Fines relating to the County of Huntingdon INTRODUCTION 13 field systems, since no studies have followed those of Nasse and Seebohm, described above, it has for the most part been assumed that either the two-field or the three-field system, or the two side by side, prevailed from the earliest times.1 Not the least of the aims of the following discussion, therefore, will be an en- deavor to show that the field systems of England were by no means uniform, — that no fewer than three distinct types arose, presumably corresponding to as many different influences exerted by the peoples who early occupied the country. No examination whatever of primitive units of measurement will here be at- tempted, and types of settlement will receive consideration only in so far as they influenced the size of township fields. The structure of villages, a subject which may yet contribute to the writing of early English history, is worthy of an independent monograph. If we ask what data are available for a description of the types of English field systems, we find that these vary from century to century. The meagre references in the charters of the Anglo- Saxon period barely indicate the existence of open arable fields, without telling the form which they assumed. Only from the end of the twelfth century is the evidence, still brief, at all definite on this point. At that time charters and feet of fines begin, though rarely,” to describe in detail the lands which they transfer by mentioning areas of parcels and locations in fields (cami) and furlongs (cultwrae). After the middle of the thirteenth century the fines cease to be specific, thenceforth reciting simply the acres of arable (terra), meadow, and pasture with which they are concerned; the charters continue to give detailed descriptions until the middle of the fourteenth century, when they too for the most part become formal and jejune. (Cambridge Antiq. Soc., Octavo Publications, no. xxxvii, Cambridge, 1913), Intro- duction. Cf. below, p. 409. 1 From this view Meitzen (Siedelung und Agrarwesen, ii. 122) vaguely dissents, on the ground that the type of settlement in Kent and elsewhere was Celtic. Gay (“Inclosures in England,” pp. 593-594) suggests that differing forms of agricultural practice characterized England from an early period, and Gonner (Common Land and Inclosure, p. 125) mentions the possibility. 2 Perhaps once in a hundred times. I4 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Of far less value than the charters are the manorial extents. Drawn up in considerable numbers in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, and for the most part embedded in inqui- sitions post mortem, these documents do not locate the acres of the tenants’ holdings in the fields. Occasionally the demesne arable is so described as to show that it lay in a two-field or a three-field township, or was consolidated; but more often it is said to lie ‘‘ in” several culturae, a phrase which leaves us un- certain whether the culturae were open-field furlongs composed of strips or were block-like subdivisions of a consolidated demesne. At times the extents refer to the manner of tilling the demesne; but the implication of such evidence for the history of field sys- tems is uncertain and the interpretation of it difficult.! More serviceable than the extents are the terriers, which ap- pear in increasing numbers from the fifteenth century to the end of the seventeenth. These detailed descriptions of one or more holdings in a township continue the tradition of the most valua- ble of the fines and charters in tending, like them, to describe freeholds and copyholds rather than demesne. Especially in the seventeenth century are they useful in telling us whether a town- ship was open or enclosed and, if open, what sort of field system it employed. The obvious defect of all the above-mentioned documents lies in the fragmentary nature of the information which they contain: nowhere do they furnish a complete and specific description of the fields of an entire township. Complete descriptions are to be had, it seems, in only three classes of documents. Two of these are late — the enclosure awards of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the tithe maps posterior to 1836. The awards themselves, though dealing with entire townships, often omit much through their indifference to old enclosures, and frequently they contain no more than casual references to the condition of that open field the disappearance of which they record. They are intent upon becoming authorities for the future rather than sources of information about the past. With the tithe maps and accompanying schedules, which also deal with entire townships, 1 Cf. below, pp. 43-46, 321. INTRODUCTION 15 it is different. These picture exactly the condition of township fields at the time when the rating was made; but, unfortunately for the subject in hand, that time is usually so late that the old field system of the township had already been much trans- formed. The maps are likely to show considerable arable en- closed and novel field systems in use. Had the tithe maps been made in the middle of the eighteenth century, they would have been a boon to the student; dating as they do from the middle of the nineteenth, they are of only occasional assistance. A third class of documents, most valuable of all for the pur- poses of this study, are the manorial surveys (supervisus) and field-books! of Tudor and early Stuart days.?, Their complete- ness and detail, so far as field conditions are concerned, render them a desirable starting-point for any excursus into earlier or later agrarian history. To interpret the more fragmentary material of an earlier time they can be used with particular advantage. A word should be added regarding township maps other than tithe maps. The earliest of them date from the late sixteenth century and for graphic illustration surpass the surveys. When, however, a township comprised two or more manors, as was usu- ally the case in the southeast, the map often worked out detailed areas for only one manor, merely sketching in the remainder of the township. Such maps are properly akin to terriers rather than to surveys. The rarer ones of the true survey type, giving areas of all strips and plats, were probably made to accompany field-books, as was the excellent one drafted for Sir Edward Coke in 1601.3 1 Often calling themselves terriers, or draggae. * Documents of this sort were first described by W. J. Corbett (“‘ Elizabethan Village Surveys,” Royal Hist. Soc., Trans., new series, 1897, xi. 67-87), most of those cited relating to Norfolk. Recently there has been printed for the Roxburghe Club an excellent series of Wiltshire surveys, entitled Survey of the Lands of William, First Earl of Pembroke, ed. C. R. Straton, 2 vols., Oxford, 1909. These and others like them have been successfully utilized for writing the social history of the sixteenth century by R. H. Tawney, The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century, London, 1912. 3 The Weasenham field-book of 42 Elizabeth, with two maps, preserved in the Holkham MSS. 16 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS In the following chapters the plan has been to seek first the characteristics of the field system of a region in those descrip- tions which, though relatively late, are most nearly’ complete. Such are the enclosure awards and maps of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and particularly the surveys of Tudor and Stuart times. Earlier evidence is then adduced to discover whether the thirteenth-century situation was a prototype of that of the eighteenth century, or whether there had been change. Before the thirteenth century we shall be on conjectural ground, but some guesses may be hazarded. This method of trying to ascertain early conditions igely through the use of late evidence is not without danger, and from its ill effects neither Seebohm’s nor Meitzen’s works are free. Yet there seems to be no other way of approaching clearly the subject in hand, while it is often only by the aid of late survivals that the earlier phenomena can be interpreted at all. The method is therefore adopted with full consciousness of its shortcomings, particularly of the restriction which demands that the projection of any situation into the past be accompanied with provisos. In particular we must not forget that the testimony which survives is only a small fraction of what once existed and what would alone insure certainty. As we approach earlier times our account of the situation must tend to become less of an exposition and more of an argument. We can no longer say, “‘ The evidence tells us thus and so’; we are forced to plead, “‘ Since this was true at a later time and the scanty earlier testimony is in accord with it, may not the known facts be projected into the unknown and unrecorded past ?”? Constructive argument and fragmentary testimony thus to a large extent become the basis for a description of early agrarian conditions; but the validity of argument and conclusion may at any moment be tested by the reader who has the known facts before him. CHAPTER I THE Two- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM TWO-FIELD townships left one-half of their arable fallow each year, three-field townships one-third of it. Apart from this the method of tillage employed by both groups was essentially the same and may for the present be called the two- and three-field system. The characteristics of this system have in a general way long been known. No one, however, has ascertained in precisely what way it differed from other field systems, at what time we first get sight of it in England, in what parts of the island it was then to be found, what irregularities it began in course of time to manifest, and what was the history of its last years. This chapter and the three following ones are designed to throw light on these questions. It is well first of all to determine the fundamental characteris- tics of the system. Seebohm’s description of Hitchin, based upon the tithe map of 1816 and giving perhaps our most concrete picture of a township under a three-field system, is after all not quite complete or accurate. That there were six fields makes little difference, since we know from a court roll that the six were grouped by twos for a three-course rotation of crops. That in one of these fields 48 owners together held 289 parcels of land, each having from one to 38 parcels, is completely deduced from the schedule of the tithe map. Nothing, however, is advanced to show that these 48 owners held corresponding areas in other fields. The map in which the author represents the “ normal virgate or yard-land ”’ is, so far as we can see, imaginary.1. The insertion of a fourteenth-century description of a virgate at Winslow, furthermore, is ingeniously contrived to lead the reader to think that its details applied as well to a Hitchin virgate in 1816; but it will be noticed that the Winslow terrier does not divide its parcels between two or three or six fields. Seebohm 1 English Village Community, p. 27, map 4. The virgate, as will be explained, was the full-sized holding of a villein or customary tenant. 17 18 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS has, in short, grafted the parcels of a virgate of the time of Edward III, the relation of which to “ fields ” remains uncertain, upon a nineteenth-century tithe map, which has the equivalent of three fields, but fields in which we do not know the distribution of the strips of the several owners.! Everything at Hitchin may, of course, have been as one is led to infer. The holdings may have consisted of scattered parcels equally divided among three pairs of fields; the existence of six fields, indeed, makes this probable, or at least makes it probable that such had once been the case. Yet proof of these facts should not be omitted in the description and definition of a typical three-field township. There are in- stances of townships which had three fields but in which a three- field system did not prevail.’ To repair the shortcomings of the Hitchin illustration, and to amplify the description of a type of open field which was un- doubtedly once widespread in England, it may be permissible to summarize conditions in certain typical two-field and three-field townships chosen from different counties. In order to make the foundation sure, complete accounts of townships are desirable; and these must, for the most part, be sought for in surveys of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries or in later records. Since pictorial illustration, as Seebohm knew, is more readily comprehensible than written documents, his happy example may be followed and a tithe map first reproduced. That of a town- ship in eastern Oxfordshire answers the purpose. The village of Chalgrove lies precisely within the area where in 1808 Arthur Young noted the continuance of a three-course husbandry.’ The tithe apportionment of the township was fixed in 1841, just before its enclosure in 1845; and the map, which is here sketched,‘ in- dicates all parcels, the areas and tenants being specified in a schedule. 1 An insert to the Hitchin map does, to be sure, show the scattered strips of William Lucas, Esq., but without areas. 2 Cf. p. 314, below. 3 View of the Agriculture of Oxfordshire (London, 1809), p.127. Cf. p. 124, below. * Owing to the reduction in scale, the number of strips in each furlong is not so great as in the original, which measures some six feet by seven. The large irreg- ular blocks of the old enclosures are also not shown; but no other important details are omitted. The map is deposited with the Board of Agriculture in St. James Square. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 19 The area of Chalgrove in 1841 was 2358 acres. Two-thirds of this area was arable, nearly one-fifth meadow and pasture.! Much of the latter lay enclosed in three farms, which were situated to the north between the open fields and the common of 140 acres. Probably the farms had at some time been improved from the waste, with perhaps some encroachment upon the common arable fields. When the map was made, however, these fields seem to have been nearly intact. They consisted of about two thousand long narrow “lands” or selions, each containing usually from one- fourth of an acre to one acre.” Several parallel lands constituted a furlong or shot, and there were about one hundred furlongs in the township. These differed in shape and size, both features depending largely upon the contour of the land. In consequence the strips varied in length; but a desire to limit their length seems manifest in the frequent appearance side by side of two furlongs the strips of which ran in the same direction. Im general the length of a “ land ” did not exceed that of the English standard acre (forty rods or poles), and there was an undoubted tendency on the part of the acre parcels to conform roughly to the shape of the standard acre. Their breadth thus became one-tenth of their length, that of half-acre parcels one-twentieth, and that of quarter-acres one-fortieth. In other field documents short strips and subdivided strips are often called butts, while triangular or irregular parcels at the end of a furlong are called gores. The map shows the lands of two adjacent furlongs frequently at right angles to one another. In such cases that strip of one furlong upon which the strips of the other abutted served as a turning- ground for the plough when the abutting strips were ploughed, and was called a headland. The lands numbered 755 and 1751 on the accompanying plan are designated in the schedule as head- lands, their situation being that just described. A stream formed part of the northern boundary of the town- ship, and another traversed it near the village. Some of the 1 The schedule appended to the map subtracts the glebe and gives areas in acres as follows: arable land, 1620; meadow and pasture land, 431; wood land, 8; com- mon land (i. e., the common pasture, or waste), 140; homesteads, 48; glebe, 69; roads and wastes, 42. 2 Cf. the following terrier, p. 22, below. IPAWsuUg BAOITsdIv A *AIPYSP1OFXO ‘Baois[VyH Jo drysuAoy, aT} Jo dv onITL ems Jo qoIyg II 4vW mOpBoly dg PPHIVAy NM 4s, wy di, SULIEY \\ Posopouy Tes TOTO) Fionn 20 THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 21 water from the latter was diverted to flow along the village street, rejoining the main brook near the church. Beside both streams were the short strips of meadow which were never ploughed and were elsewhere often called dales. Between the homesteads and the stream were the home closes (‘‘ homestalls,” ‘‘ garths,”’ “ backsides.”’) Thus far the above description might well apply to many an open-field township which was by no means cultivated in accord- ance with the principles of the two- and three-field system. The characteristic feature of the latter was the further grouping of the furlongs into two, three, four, or six large fields. At Chalgrove there were two groups of fields. The fields of the smaller group to the south of the village are designated in the tithe schedule Langdon, Middle Langdon, and Lower Langdon. With these went certain furlongs toward the northwest, and within them lay much freehold. Indeed, it is not certain that so late as 1841 they were tilled in a strictly three-field manner. To the northeast of the village lay those fields among which the copyholds, the glebe, and certain freeholds were divided. They were without doubt the old three fields of the township, and in 1841 were known as Solinger field, Houndswell field, and Sand field. They ad- joined one another and were similar in extent. At the western end of Houndswell field lay two small “ fields” named Bower End and Upper End, both pretty clearly appendant to Hounds- well field but probably deriving independent names from their proximity to parts of the village called Bower End and Upper End. How the customary holdings were related to the fields is shown by the following description, transcribed from the schedule. Since this copyhold of John Jones was similar to the glebe and to several other copyholds, it may be taken as typical of early con- ditions. Although the schedule does not use the term virgate or yard-land, often applied in other documents to customary hold- ings, the size of this copyhold is about that of the normal virgate, and not improbably represented such a holding: — 1 Tithe schedule, p. 12. 22 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Joun Jones. — CoPpyYHOLD FOR LIVES UNDER THE PRESIDENT AND SCHOLARS No. on or Saint MAry MAGDALENE COLLEGE, OxFORD the Map Bower Enp FIe_p 435 One Land in Acre Hedge Furlong........... cornwall Uprer ENpD FIELD One Land in Harpes End Furlong................... One Land in Harpes End Furlong................... SAND FIELD One Ward wane se nlOno as, cha wine otk ta, saree eiaht ies One acre ln Bank unOne =, ss vena cee co teres ieee Oné Land in Lank Purlongi ss 5 200 TO. Sa Te One;Land.in Setts; Furlong. «cys arsytjusts qabt don qeree Qne Acre jn Little Pry Furlong... <3... 25 en oo ee ei One Acre m Little Pry Purlone here pee HOUNDSWELL FIELD One‘acre'‘in Hayes End Furlong 20). .222 20. 2002. 08 One Land in Houndswell Furlong................... Qne,acre.in Short Furlong: ¢5030 case fe Sst ok. eae ca Qne acre SuOre PUMONL sci 4. -.nerEe ae serie hace One*Land im short Purlong sis eee eee eee One Land in Little Bushes or Rushy Furrows Furlong .. Oné and jnidipto5 }2-. ficou eee ere toa eee One Land tn igitto: —. . cca ne moat Cie ore care One Wand in Gittosersas eee cae oe eee eee eee eer One Land) in} ditto 7-3) C0 SIRNAS SIO REG SOLINGER FIELD One Land ‘in Gong bands? hs. a. 22 cee ee cee. Pee One Land/in Down Furlong. ec ee eee Two Lands shooting on Oxford Way ................ One Landiin’ White Lands. 25 50 bn ee hin eee oe Two dcands' 31 Gitt0 22 hacen fot ete eee PO eee One Land in Easington Hedge Furlong............... One Land in Easington Hedge Furlong............... Qné:Landdn Woodlands; jac 5. a opise tek CO On0 1 O10 iS} ra E io ° wo mt wb WwW WH ND KH HW WH DW H HAH HH + BH HSH DH DY HF ND Wl HW RH HR RH RH OR HR RW HD A OR THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 23 It will be noticed that the parcels were distributed with con- siderable equality among the three fields. Solinger field received 7+ acres in 15 parcels, Sand field g acres in 13 parcels, Hounds- well field (with Bower End and Upper End fields) 52 acres in 13 parcels. Were the terrier of an earlier date, the irregularity in apportionment would, as will appear elsewhere, probably have been less. The areas assigned to the parcels show approxima- tions to acre, half-acre, and quarter-acre strips; and the locations (numbers on the map correspond with numbers in the schedule) illustrate the scattering of the strips throughout the fields and furlongs. Late though the Chalgrove map and terrier be, they enable us to form a correct and vivid idea of the fundamental characteristics of the three-field system and prepare us to inter- pret earlier evidence not made graphic by contemporary maps. As pointed out in the Introduction, the most comprehensive and satisfactory descriptions of English townships are the surveys of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. At their best these note nearly everything that one could wish to know about the manors or townships to which they refer. The metes and bounds, the area of the demesne with its location and the terms upon which it was leased, the number of the freeholders and copy- holders, the holdings of each, the rents, fines, and heriots paid, the parcels of land enclosed and in open field, the nature of these, whether arable, meadow, or pasture, the names of the common fields and meadows, — all this, in the most extended of the sur- veys, a sworn jury of the villagers was called upon to report. The monasteries seem to have originated the custom of making such surveys, for some of the earliest are found in their cartularies of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; but the administrators of crown property proved apt pupils, and the most elaborate reports are those relative to crown estates or to manors temporarily in royal hands. During the sixteenth century the latter, of course, included many monastic properties. So long are the best surveys that it is impracticable to make extended transcripts from them. The information touching field systems is, furthermore, so interwoven with other detail that it is not readily comprehensible unless rearranged and adapted. 24 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS For these reasons it seems desirable to print im exlenso ex- tracts from two surveys, typical respectively of two-field and three-field townships, and to follow these with pertinent field matter abstracted from other surveys. Such is the content of Appendix I. If there was a difference in the antiquity of two-field and three- field townships, no one will doubt that the former were the earlier. Apart from any question of age, however, the simpler system calls logically for prior treatment. In an excellent series of surveys of the Glastonbury manors in Wiltshire we find pictured the condi- tion of several two-field townships as they were in 9 Henry VIII.! The descriptions are particularly minute, the location and area of open-field parcels being always stated. The survey of South Damerham, one of the longest, has been printed by R. C. Hoare in his History of Modern Wiltshire; but so inaccessible is this bulky work that it will not be amiss to transcribe a part of the survey of Kington, another of the Wiltshire manors.’ After the introduction, the rubric for metes and bounds, and the description of the demesne, this survey makes note of one of the important features of an old English township. It is the common. That of Kington, called Langley Heath, embraced 310 acres, and over it lord and tenants had common of pasture for all cattle throughout the year. In this there was nothing pecu- liar to a two- or a three-field village. Quite apart from the char- acter of its early fields, nearly every township had such a common and the tenants had rights therein. It would have been more pertinent had we been told about pasturage rights over the com- mon fields; but on that point this survey, like many others, is silent. The free tenants at Kington were four and most of their hold- ings were small. Only one held a virgate and paid so much as five shillings rent. One of them was Malmesbury Abbey and an- other the Prioress of Kington, each answerable for a messuage or two. Similarly John Saunders held in fee a tenement, rendering therefor two geese yearly. The insignificance of the freeholds 1 Harl. MS. 3961. 3 Cf. Appendix I, below. 2 (6 vols., London, 1822-44), Appendix II, pp. 40-64. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 25 and the personal distinction of certain of the freeholders are char- acteristics that will recur. The customary tenants, or copyholders, on the contrary, were numerous and their holdings were considerable. Six were pos- sessed each of two virgates or “ half-hides,’ seventeen of one virgate, twelve of one-half virgate, and there were two cottagers, each with three or four acres. Besides the two cotlands, six typical holdings have been transcribed,! all showing similar characteristics. To each copyholder was assigned a messuage, a yard, a garden, and sometimes an orchard, together with a few closes held in severalty. At Kington the enclosures were larger than in most townships, comprising in general from five to ten acres. After an account of these, we reach in each case the bulk of the holding. This was arable, and for the virgatarius (the tenant of a virgate) contained about twenty acres. The dimidiz hidarii (tenants of two virgates) had some forty acres each, the dimidii virgatarit about ten. The arable of each holding, except the last half-virgate, lay in two fields, usually called the North field and the West field, such being the situation of the two rela- tive to the village.2 Between the two fields the arable of the vir- gates was pretty equally divided (e. g., 10 acres vs. gz acres); in some of the larger holdings, however, the lion’s share went to the North field (263 acres vs. 20 acres, 24 acres vs. 194 acres). The parcels ranged in size from one-fourth acre (perticata) to two acres, most of them being either half-acres or quarter-acres. A virgate comprised from forty to sixty such parcels. Often more than one parcel of a holding lay in the same furlong. The re- currence of furlong names in the various holdings shows inter- mixed ownership. There is in the survey nothing about the shape of the parcels, but it is safe to assume that where several acre and half-acre parcels lay in the same furlong they were long and narrow. 1 In Appendix I. The first two or three of each size have been selected. 2 In the first holding East field replaces North field; but, as certain of the furlong names are those of North-field furlongs, the East and North fields can- not have been distinct. 3 The last half-virgater held, along with his half-virgate, some twenty acres of demesne, which lay mainly in the East field. 26 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Since no plan of Kington is available, the appearance of a two-field township may be illustrated by the enclosure map of Croxton, Lincolnshire. As the accompanying cut shows, this rectangular township was in 1810 divided by the highway into an East field and a West field, while to the north lay the sheep-walk. Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the ' ¥v - Township of Croxton, Lincolnshire, 1810. Wootton 7 Wold or Uleeby Sheep Walk a East Field West Field e SS @ 5 5 wn ) x 2 Bracken } Atkinso Closes | i Close, ' ‘ West Field Kirmington Map Iil Adjacent to the village on the southeast were a few closes, appar- ently taken from the moor. The two arable fields remained nearly intact and were similar in size. If in imagination we fill them with furlongs and strips, the plan will represent not inade- quately the situation described in the Kington survey. Between two- and three-field townships, as has been said, there was no essential difference in principle. The one divided its 1 C. P. Recov. Ro., 52 Geo. III, Trin. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 27 arable between two large fields, the other among three. The former tilled one-half of the arable each year, the latter two- thirds, the parts which remained fallow being respectively one- half and one-third. In consequence of having an additional field, the three-field township subdivided each copyhold into three ap- proximately equal parts. This feature is emphasized in another survey, abstracts from which follow the Kington descriptions in Appendix I. Handborough in central Oxfordshire is a large township which from the thirteenth century has formed a part of the manor of Woodstock.! In 1606 it was surveyed as royal property, and the resultant supervisus is an excellent illustration of the work of the royal commissioners. The freeholders, who were of the curious sort said to hold “‘ libere per copiam,”’ were much more numerous than the freeholders at Kington. About fifty arenamed. The two who held most land were persons of quality, viz., George Cole, Gent., with three messuages and 11% acres, and the heirs of M. Culpepper, Kt., with two messuages and 16} acres. In both instances most of the acres did not lie in the open fields, and an- other freehold of ten acres was partly woodland. Sometimes the freeholder was without a messuage, and he might also, as inspec- tion shows, be a copyholder (in the strict sense of the term) who, in addition to a substantial copyhold, held a small parcel of land freely. Such was Roger Brooke, the first on the list. For the most part, however, the “ liberi tenentes per copiam ”’ were per- - sons who held merely a messuage and a small close or parcel of land attached. The entire fifty had not a dozen acres in the open fields, and in no instance was there a distribution of acres among fields. At Handborough, as at Kington, the holdings of free tenants are of little value for the study of field systems. With the customary holdings the case is strikingly different. Almost every one of these supplies information about the open fields. There were forty customary tenements held by thirty-six persons, all tenements except three having messuages. Apart from a half-dozen instances the virgate equivalent of the acreage 1 A. Ballard, ‘“‘ Woodstock Manor in the Thirteenth Century,” Vierteljahrschrift fiir Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1908, vi. 424. 28 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS is given. Each of three tenants held one and one-half virgates, ten others a virgate apiece, the remainder for the most part half a virgate apiece. The normal virgate comprised three or four acres in the common meadow, from five to ten acres of enclosed land, and between seven and ten acres in each of three common arable fields. Often the arable acres of the holdings were almost exactly divided among the three fields (10, 10, 8; 4, 5, 43; 3, 32, 34). At times, however, there were discrepancies which might give to one field as many as five or six acres more than to another (15, 9, 9; 63,112, 7; },3,14).. The number of parcels into which the arable was divided is not stated, as it usually is not in the surveys of Jacobean days. On the other hand, we are told more about the common meadows than at Kington, and learn that each holding had half-acre or quarter-acre parcels in them. There is further an obvious intention to give information about the pasturage rights of the customary tenants. Nearly always occurs the ab- breviation “‘ communia pasture ut supra.” But we refer back in vain; for either a folio is gone, or, as is more likely, the folios as they stand at present have been incorrectly rearranged. Toward the end of the survey descriptions of three holdings specify com- mon of pasture “‘in omnibus Campis, etc.,” “in omnibus Com- muniis, etc.,”’ and “in Einsham heath and Kinges Heath.” ! The first statement, to the effect that there was common of pasture in all fields (campus is the usual term for arable field), undoubt- edly represents the existent rights. The somewhat full extracts from the surveys of Kington and Handborough will perhaps serve to make clear the nature of our most detailed evidence about English field systems.2 For specific and decisive pronouncements Tudor and Jacobean sur- veys will continually have to be relied upon, and in the light of what they reveal the earlier testimony from many regions of 1 Cf. Appendix I, below, pp. 434-436. ? In one respect the Handborough situation was somewhat unusual. The demesne was farmed, not to two or three or a half-dozen lessees in large parcels, but to some thirty-six persons, nearly all customary tenants. These leaseholds usually comprised less than ten acres each, and frequently lay outside the three common fields in areas called the Great Hide and the Little Hide. The title was “ per copiam,” and the tenure seems very like copyhold of inheritance. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 29 England will have to be interpreted. At this point it is there- fore pertinent to inquire what counties can furnish two- and three- field surveys like those above examined; for an answer to this question will indicate roughly the extent of the system at the end of the sixteenth century. It is clear that not every holding in a township need be in- stanced to prove that the arable lay in two or three large open fields. It is equally clear that freeholds, by reason of their small- ness, their irregularity, and the social status of their proprietors, were unrepresentative. Descriptions of copyholds, on the other hand, nearly always reflect a two- or three-field system by the approximately equal distribution of their arable between two or three fields; hence ten or a dozen such descriptions from a town- ship will suffice to inform us of the field arrangements existing there. Adaptations of this sort have been made from several surveys and arranged in Appendix I to show the extension of the system illustrated by the surveys of Kington and Hand- borough.! Tudor and Jacobean surveys of two-field manors most often come from the upland region which begins with the northern Cotswolds and extends to the Channel. Traversing it in this manner, we start with a long Jacobean survey of Upper and — Nether Brailes, a township of southeastern Warwickshire. The holdings are estimated in virgates of from eight to twenty acres, all of them divided with precision between North field and South field. There were practically no enclosures save the acre or two attached to each messuage, but there was considerable meadow, some five acres being appurtenant to the virgate. The tenants had stinted common of pasture in as many as nine pastures. On the eastern slopes of the Cotswolds, just over from Brailes, were many two-field Oxfordshire townships, well illustrated by Shipton-under-Wychwood, a survey of which was made in 6 Edward VI. The customary holdings here usually formed con- siderable farms of more than one virgate each, the virgate itself containing as many as forty acres. To each farm were attached a 1 The sources from which they are drawn are noted in each case, and the town- ships to which they refer are located on the map which faces the title-page. 30 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS small close and a few acres of meadow. In half of the customary holdings the division of arable acres between the East and West fields was equal; in the other half there was some inequality, usually in favor of the East field. Two monastic manors of the Gloucestershire Cotswolds, Charl- ton Abbots and Weston Birt, were surveyed with many others in the time of Edward VI. In both the virgates were large, con- taining in one township 48 acres of arable and in the other about 4o acres. The division of acres between the North field and the East field of Charlton was even, between the North field and the South field of Weston Birt nearly even. In neither township did the copyholds have other closes than those near the village. With each virgate at Charlton went nine acres in the common meadow, with a virgate at Weston Birt seldom so much as an acre. The extension of the Cotswold area into Somerset brings us, a little south from Bath, to South Stoke, which in 6 James I was surveyed as one of the queen’s manors. Here the enclosures were larger, containing from ten to twenty acres in each holding. Occa- sionally they had encroached upon the common arable fields, as had those of Lawrence Smythe and Thomas Hudd. Such at least seems to be the inference, since except in these instances the arable was assigned in nearly equal parts to the East and West fields. The meadow, too, had been enclosed. Thus, although the township was obviously one of two fields, there had already begun an attack upon the integrity of the system which we shall see farther advanced in most townships of Somerset. . In the large Dorsetshire township of Gillingham the same change was under way in 6 James I. It had here gone so far that inequality in the division of the arable of a holding between the two fields was frequent. In some holdings meadow and pasture even predominated over the arable; but the general apportion- ment of the latter to the two fields, South and North,! leaves no doubt that a two-field system is described. Such are typical surveys from six of the counties in which the two-field system was most often apparent. Berkshire, perhaps more extensively characterized by two-field townships than any 1 A third unimportant field occasionally appears. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 31 of them, should be added to the list. The Glastonbury manor of Ashbury was in Berkshire, and of this we have a survey similar in date and character to that of Kington, described above.!. The upland parts of these seven counties form a compact area in the southwest, characterized by high, bleak down-land not favorable to a developed type of agriculture. Hence in this region the two- field system lingered, little changed, at least until the seventeenth century. We shall see that it was, as might be expected, the prevalent type there at an early date. There were two outlying areas in which at the end of the six- teenth century it was possible to find two-field townships as un- changed as in the Cotswold counties. One such township was Wellow, in the Isle of Wight. Here, in a Jacobean survey, the customary holdings divided their arable with great consistency and considerable equality between an East field and a West field.? Such surveys from the Isle of Wight are, however, so infrequent that a two-field system can hardly be said to have retained much hold upon the island in the days of James I. It was different with the other outlying area, the so-called wolds of Lincolnshire, where two-field townships were as strongly in- trenched as in the Cotswolds or the Wiltshire downs. The Jaco- bean surveys of Humberston and Alvingham have been chosen for illustration. Both townships had an East field and a West field, and both divided the tenants’ arable with marked precision between the two. There was considerable common meadow at Humberston, at Alvingham rather more enclosed pasture. In all respects the townships were of the strictly two-field type. To show how often the three-field system is apparent in Tudor and Jacobean surveys a longer list of counties than the one just given is required. Among the counties where it rivalled the two-field system were some in which the Cotswold highlands gave place here and there to more fertile areas. Such was Oxfordshire, which has already furnished us the survey of Handborough. Such was Warwickshire throughout most of the valley of the Avon. Such too were the three counties of the south- 1 Harl. MS. 3961, ff. 117-133. The fields were East and West. 2 Cf. Appendix I, below, p. 440. 32 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS west from each of which an example of the two-field system has been drawn, Wiltshire, Somerset, and Dorset. It will be in- structive to parallel the two-field surveys already examined with those picturing three-field arrangements in these last three counties.! In southeastern Somerset, where the hills give way to the great plain, lies the large manor of Martock, surveyed in 1-2 Philip and Mary. Four townships were included, Martock, Hurst, Cote, and Bower Henton, and each of the four had its independent group of three fields. Ten of the twenty-nine copyholds at Bower Henton are summarized in Appendix I. Each comprised a mes- suage, a small close, and an amount of enclosed pasture about equal in area to the arable lying in any one of the three fields. Frequently the survey notes that the enclosure of the pasture was recent. Each copyholder had also from four to six acres of common meadow. ‘The remainder of his holding was arable, divided with little variation among the South, East, and West fields. The recurrence of this characteristic, reproduced as it is in the other townships of the manor, fixes the three-field system upon southeastern Somerset. But the manor was somewhat of an outpost, and we shall not find much similar evidence west of Martock. Over the county border in Dorset, however, the survey can be matched by a similar one descriptive of Hinton St. Mary in the reign of Elizabeth. Here the enclosures were even more exten- sive than at Bower Henton, and nearly equalled the area of the open field. Some tenants had enclosures only; but most of them continued to have at least half of their acres in the common arable fields, distributed, though not very evenly, between North field, South field, and West field. Not dissimilar is the long Jacobean survey of the Wiltshire manor of Ashton Keynes. In it the holdings are estimated in virgates, a circumstance which assures us that they had a long tradition behind them. About one-third of the total copyhold land was enclosed and was largely pasture. Some closes had re- sulted from encroachments upon the arable fields, the holdings of 1 Copyholds from all the surveys about to be cited are tabulated in Appendix I. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 33 Joanna Archard and Joanna Syninge having thus decreased con- siderably their acreage in the East field. Elsewhere, although the distribution of the acres of a holding between East field, North field, and Westham was not so precise as in many townships, discrepancies are not great enough to call in question the existence of a three-field husbandry. If we make an excursion from the southwestern counties toward the east and north, we shall enter the less disputed domain of the three-field system. Hampshire and Sussex contribute two excel- lent terrier-surveys of Battle Abbey manors made in the early years of Henry VI. Like the Glastonbury series, they describe each open-field parcel, and the number of these has been indi- cated in parentheses in the brief summaries given in Appendix I. The small manor of Ansty lay in northeastern Hampshire, and its fields bore the conventional names of South, Middle, and East. The holdings were not estimated by virgates, but nearly every one, except those held at the will of the lord, had its mes- suage or toft. A few were small, but even these contained an acre or more in each field. It is in two or three of the larger holdings that some unequal distribution appears, an inequality which, so far as we can see, was not compensated for by the possession of en- closed arable. Such occasional deviations from the general prac- tice should not be taken as evidence that a township did not fall - within the three-field group. They remind us, rather, that de- scriptions of several holdings are often needed to give assurance in these matters. The Sussex survey describes the manor of Alciston as it was subdivided into “‘ borga,”’ a term apparently implying distinct townships. Two of the borga were Blatchington and Alfriston, alike in their field arrangements, of which the descriptions of a half-dozen copyholds and two demesne leaseholds at Alfriston are illustrative. In these we are introduced to a new terminology. Instead of virgates we meet with “ wistae,”’ instead of fields with “‘leynes.”” Both terms were peculiar to Sussex and occur often in the Battle cartulary. Each wista contained about eighteen acres, and the assignment of its acre and half-acre strips to the three leynes, North, Middle, and South, was on the principle of 34 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS exact division. Since Alfriston and Blatchington are at the east- ern end of the Sussex coastal plain, the three-field system reached at least thus far. Just as the manor of Martock in Somerset, however, was a western outpost, so these townships of the manor of Alciston will prove to be points beyond which it is difficult to discover the existence of the three-field system in southeastern England. Turning northward, we may add to the description of Hand- borough briefer accounts of two manors which, like it, lay in. the southern midlands. At the end of the sixteenth century there were drawn up for All Souls College, Oxford, maps of its estates in various counties. These are now bound together in volumes known as the Typus Collegii.!. Among them is a map of Salford, Bedfordshire, accompanied by a schedule which gives names of tenants and areas of the parcels shown on the map. Apart from the glebe and three other small freeholds, the township is assigned to the ‘ tenants of the college grounds.” Chief of these was Martha Langford, who had 160 acres of arable and 112 acres of pasture, all enclosed. This was clearly the old demesne. The other tenants represented the old copyholders. In general each had a few acres of enclosed pasture, a few of ‘“‘ pasture and lea ground ” not farther described, and a few of “ meadow in the fields.” But the most of each holding lay in the three open arable fields in many parcels.2,_ Brooke, Middle, and Wood were the names of the fields, two of them persisting to the time of the en- closure of the township in 1805. At that date Middle field had been subdivided into Lower and Upper fields, although the total open-field area remained almost unchanged. In 1595 the sub- division of the holdings among the three fields was more con- sistently unequal than in any other survey yet examined. In the larger holdings fewer acres were assigned to Middle field than to Brook or to Wood field, apparently because the demesne arable lay largely in this field. Five or six of its furlongs were entirely 1 T am indebted to the warden, Sir William Anson, and to the Rev. A. H. Johnson for the privilege of examining them. 2 The number of parcels in each holding is noted in the abstract given in the Appendix. A part of the Salford map is reproduced by Tawney, Agrarian Problem, p. 163. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 35 demesne, whereas Brook field had only one demesne furlong and Wood field not any. Such concentration of the arable demesne in furlongs, and these furlongs in one field, is unusual; but even this can hardly have affected seriously the three-field character of the township. A very detailed survey of the township of Welford, North- amptonshire, made in 1602, is preserved in an eighteenth-century copy in the Bodleian. The township comprised two manors, that of William Saunders and that of the “ late dissolved monastery of Sulby,” then the queen’s. The first manor consisted of the demesne and the holdings of several “tenants at will”’; the second was in the hands of ‘“‘ ancient freeholders,”’ “‘ new free- holders,”’ and ‘‘ the Queen’s patentees,”’ the last probably repre- senting the copyholders under the monastery. In Appendix I several holdings of three kinds have been summarized in order to show how various tenures fitted into the same field framework. The tenements were rated in virgates. There were no closes except the homestalls, each tenant’s holding lying in the open fields, where were also his strips of meadow or “ lay ground.” Among the three fields, named Hemplow, Middle, and Abbey, the acres of the virgates were, except in a few instances, divided with- out prejudice. In most respects this survey is a model one, since it gives the names of all furlongs, with the area and location of each open-field strip. Selected holdings from four northern surveys will complete our three-field itinerary. A Jacobean account of Lutterworth, Lei- cestershire, illustrates a feature characteristic of many midland and northern field-books, the distribution of several parcels of meadow or “ leys’’ among the arable fields. Here the tenants’ strips of meadow, instead of being segregated near a stream, were disposed here and there throughout the arable area. Just as at Welford, certain furlongs which began with arable strips ended with strips of ‘‘ ley’; and the meadow in each field amounted to as much as one-third of the arable there. In other respects the survey is of the normal three-field type. Rolleston, a township of eastern Staffordshire, presents the novelty of six fields instead of three. In the Elizabethan survey 36 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the first holding groups these by twos, an arrangement that will be found to apply pretty well to most of the other holdings, thus reducing the township to one of practically three fields. In several instances the division of acres was not so exact as that to which we have been accustomed (e. g., 44, 6, 7; 3%, 63, 3); yet, if all the holdings be considered, it will be seen that in only about one- fourth of them was there such inequality of division as to make the existence of a three-field system questionable. The remaining three-fourths reassure us on this point, though Rolleston, too, was something of an outpost, for there were not many three-field townships beyond it to the northwest. Typical of the fields of southern Yorkshire is the Jacobean de- scription of Elloughton. Here the holdings were rated in ox- gangs, a single one of which comprised, along with some two acres of meadow, two or three acres in each of the three fields (South- east, Middle, and Milne). The township contained many hold- ings of about this size and character, although the oxgangs some- times accumulated in the hands of one tenant to the number of four or more. In southern Durham, Jacobean surveys record several three- field townships, of which Ingleton was one. In none was there a rating by bovates, and in all the tenants held by letters patent rather than by copy. Each holding had its two or three acres of common meadow and a few additional acres of enclosed meadow. Some of the latter may have been abstracted from the common fields; for when enclosed meadow appears in a holding there is also some inequality in the distribution of arable acres among the fields. Although more remains to be said about this tendency in Durham, the Ingleton acres as they lay in 5 James I had not yet departed far from a three-field arrangement. From all of the counties which have thus far furnished illustra- tive surveys of the two- and three-field systems it would be easy to increase the amount of similarly indubitable evidence. There remains, however, one region for which the three-field testimony is relatively slight and for that reason deserving of careful con- sideration. It comprises the counties of Herefordshire and Shrop- shire, the greater part of the old Welsh border. As we shall see THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 37 later, considerable irregularity is visible in the field system of these counties at the end of the sixteenth century.!. Hence it is pertinent to inquire how clearly a three-field system may be dis- cerned within their limits in Jacobean days. Several surveys need be cited,? a course the more necessary since there were few holdings in any township; for it is characteristic of these counties that the townships were only of hamlet size, and that many of them were grouped within one manor.* Perhaps the most unimpeachable testimony to the existence of a three-field system in Herefordshire at the end of the sixteenth century is discernible in a survey of the manor of Stoke Prior. Situated in the northern part of the county, this manor comprised in the days of the survey several hamlets. At Stoke itself all copy- holds and freeholds were apportioned to three fields, Blakardyn, Elford’s, and Church, although the acres of the last field some- times have to be supplied from outlying areas pretty clearly con- nected with it. At Risbury a more exact division of acres than that existing between Muston field, Mere field, and Inn field could not be desired. At Hennor we hear of only one tenant, a freeholder, whose arable acres none the less lay in three fields. Another Herefordshire manor whose members seem to have employed the three-field system was Stockton. In the hamlet of Stockton the number of fields was considerable, but between two of them, Rowley’s field and Rade field, each tenant had about two-thirds of his acres pretty evenly divided. All the remaining fields may well be grouped as a third large field, playing this part relative to the other two. One holding, that of William Bach, had precisely twenty acres in each of these three areas. The three tenants in the hamlet of Hamnashe likewise divided their acres among three fields. At Kimbolton, another hamlet of the manor, five fields recur; but, as at Stockton, two of them are each as important as a combination of the other three. From Shropshire we have only one brief survey which illus- trates the three-field system. It describes four copyholds in the fields of Mawley and Prysley, hamlets of the manor of Cleo- bury. While there was much enclosed pasture here, the arable of 1 Cf. below, pp. 93 sq. 2 Cf. Appendix I. 3 Cf. below, pp. 95, 141. 38 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the holdings, two of which are said to have been virgates, lay equally divided among three fields. Other Shropshire evidence, not less convincing, is of a different nature. It appears inciden- tally in a specification of boundaries that forms part of an elaborate survey of Morffe forest made in the early seventeenth century.!. Morffe forest, which contained 3600 acres and was divided into two manors known as Worfield Holme and Claverley Holme, lay near the Severn, between that river and the Stafford- shire boundary. Common rights within the forest resided in the townships that bordered it. In assessing these rights the sur- vey states the areas within each township that had valid claims, noting which fields were arable. In several cases these fields were three in number, and their comparatively large size and rela- tively equal areas make it highly probable that they were in each instance the three common fields of the hamlet in question. The list is as follows: — Hamlet Areas in Acres of the Fields ‘‘ common to ”’ each Hamlet Bromiley. ji. 4) 104, 74, 106 RIWARICOLC 9c ait a Me 34, 30, 34 Hoccum Lopp ...... 25, 27, 41, with 15 other acres in two parcels Barnsley~. 2.2.0: 31 (Windsor field), 5, 28, 33 Roughtont22). ues 11g (Anesdale field), 134, 103 Wikenl cans, eR. cig 49, 59, 49 10 ul heoy ne eee ae 2 58, 32, 38 HOpstone.....~..%. « 20, 30, 58 (Ley field) 34 (Snedwell), 50 (Middle field), 53 (Poole field) SPOR a7. crs- sop EE Retr 69, 48, 77 A smaller number of the abutting townships possessed arable fields less regular than those noted above. They belong to a class, numerous in this region, which will be discussed later.? If we disregard this class, the foregoing list of fields seems confirma- tory of the surveys, and taken in conjunction with them gives 1 Land Rev., M. B. 203, ff. 305-327. 2 Cf. pp. 93 sg., below. The hamlets bordering upon Morffe forest which had irregular fields were as follows: — Hamlet Areas of the Fields in Acres TCOLES cre set 00s se 44 (Mill field), 24 (Woodcroft field), 23 (common to Burcott) 70 (belonging to Burcott), 35 (belonging to Burcott) TS eS 2 a ae ee 21 (Bass field), 103 (with 67 acres more) Sitchhoase 2:0. 000.25 56, 44, 46, 13, 16 (“lately inclosed out of Clarely common field’’) SHILLOT ek one ie ce ce 48 (Home field), 102 Pnostone < . Ae. - erates 43, 6, 48 THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 39 assurance that the three-field system extended up to the Welsh border. After this marshalling of typical Tudor and Jacobean surveys from several counties, it should be possible to single out the char- acteristic features of the two- and three-field system; for only by the aid of such data, as has been said above, can the earlier and more fragmentary evidence be interpreted. The history of English open fields reaches far back of the sixteenth century, and testimony in regard to this earlier time is at hand in the docu-. ments described in the Introduction. A method of interpreting them remains to be sought. In drawing up our list of charac- teristic features we may treat two- and three-field arrangements as a single system that will in due course have to be contrasted with other systems. What, then, is the minimum of information which an early charter, fine, terrier, or extent must supply in order to give assurance that the township to which it refers was cultivated after the manner of Kington or Handborough ? First of all, testimony to the existence of two or three large open fields (campz) is essential. If the open-field area was so small that the total amount of it in the tenants’ occupation was less than their enclosures, no need existed for the cultivation of the arable in the manner dictated by two- or three-field hus- bandry. In such cases reliance could be put upon the tillage of the enclosures, and irregularities in the distribution of arable acres among the open fields could thus be corrected. In circumstances like these it is possible that the two- and three-field system may once have been existent but its integrity have been in time im- paired. The tenants had perhaps seen fit to change part of their arable to pasture; and the holdings of certain tenants who thus converted a part of their open arable field have been noted at South Stoke, Ashton Keynes, and Ingleton. Such conversion is always a sign of the decay of the original system. The preceding illustrations have shown that the normal enclosed area in two- or three-field townships seldom exceeded one-third of the arable, and usually was much less. Suspicion will therefore attach to any terrier in which the ratio tends to be reversed and closes incline to predominate over the open-field arable in any holding. 40 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Closely bound up with this first characteristic of the two- and three-field system is the further one that the arable acres of a hold- ing were divided with approximate equality between the two or three fields. This is unquestionably the fundamental trait of the system under consideration. It depends, of course, upon the fact that a fixed ratio had to be maintained year after year between tilled land and fallow. Under the two-field system the ratio was one to one, under the three-field system two to one. Any de- parture from an equal division of the acres of a holding between fields involved shortage for the tenant during the year in which his largest group of acres lay fallow. Increased abundance the ensuing year could scarcely repair the loss to a peasantry which probably lived close to the margin of subsistence. The difficulty would be greater in a two-field than in a three-field township, since a shortage of acres would there be more frequently and more acutely felt. The approximately equal distribution of the acres of a holding between two or three fields must therefore be em- ployed as a crucial test. A single terrier which evinces it consti- tutes strong testimony to the existence of the system. If, on the other hand, not one but nearly all of the tenant-holdings fail to observe it, the township can scarcely be looked upon as lying in two or three fields. An arrangement of six fields by twos, like that at Rolleston, was only an unimportant modification of the three-field system. The phrase ‘‘ tenant-holdings,” which has just been used, needs restricting. As the Kington and Handborough surveys show, and as many other surveys would emphasize if they were to be analyzed in full, freeholds are likely to throw little light upon field systems. At least, this is true with regard to town- shipsin which they did not constitute the majority of the holdings. In certain manors, especially in the eastern counties, freeholds assumed such an agrarian importance that they can be relied upon. Elsewhere they were generally small, not largely com- posed of open-field arable, liable to be without messuage, and frequently in the possession of an absentee proprietor, who was often a corporation or a person of importance. For these reasons they have been seldom cited in the preceding abstracts. Nor can THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 4I they henceforth be depended upon in either the earlier or the later evidence to disprove the existence of two or three fields. In other words, the fact that a half-dozen freeholds, or even all the free- holds of a township, were not amenable to two- or three-field condi- tions does not prove that this system was there in disfavor. On the other hand, a single freehold which did divide its arable acres equally between two or three fields is a satisfactory bit of evidence in favor of the existence of the system. Such were the ancient freeholds at Welford, and such was the glebe at Salford. Free- holds, in short, have affirmative, not negative, value. The desir- able tenures for our purpose are copyholds, or the leaseholds into which they were sometimes transformed, as they probably were at Welford and Ingleton. Henceforth, therefore, copyholds, whenever available, will be cited in proof or disproof of the exist- ence of the two- or three-field system. Freeholds will be relied upon only in default of other evidence or when their significance is clear. ) The superior value of copyholds depends in part upon one of their characteristics which leads in turn to a fourth useful test in the interpretation of field systems. Copyholds were usually rated in virgates or bovates, each of which was responsible for a fixed quotum of rents and services. Probably to avoid inconven- ience in the collection of rents and the exaction of services, the virgates and bovates, except again in some eastern counties, re- mained little changed for centuries. Division appears to have been unusual after the thirteenth century, and consolidation is first apparent in the sixteenth-century surveys. The virgate, therefore, represented a holding of long standing, originally de- signed to support a peasant family which could muster two oxen for the plough. In Somerset such traditional holdings were some- times called, instead of virgates, “de antiquo austro.”’! Al- though the virgates differed in size from township to township, within any particular one they were approximately equal in area, as the foregoing surveys have often shown. For an investigation of the early history of the two- and three-field system no frag- mentary evidence is so valuable as the terrier of a virgate. It is 1 Survey of Kingsbury Episcopi, Land Rev., M. B. 202 ff., 199-253. 42 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the best assurance that there were other similar holdings in the township, and that the acres of all were arranged in the fields much as were the acres about which we are informed. There were, to be sure, unrepresentative virgates.!. Yet when one con- siders how many virgate and bovate descriptions were cast in the same pattern, and that pattern perfectly indicative of the field system of the township, the significance of the copyhold virgate terrier is appreciated. While a single terrier may thus go far to establish the existence of the two- and three-field system, more than the terrier of one virgate is needed to disprove its existence. The virgate in question may have been exceptional. Only by the testimony of several irregular virgates from the same region, and preferably from the same township, can it be made clear that the two- and three-field system was non-existent there. Upon this principle several of the following chapters have been written. In the earlier evidence, however, it seldom happens that we get descriptions of virgates, bovates, or the halves of either. Nor are reasonably large holdings of any sort, whether copyhold, leasehold, or freehold, always described. The acres of early terriers and charters were frequently few in number; and we must ask what confidence is to be put in those grants of Jand which not only omit an estimate by virgates or bovates, but in addition convey not more than three or four acres ? The answer brings us to a fifth characteristic of the two- and three-field sys- tem which at this point is more or less decisive. We perceive, in short, that much depends upon the names of the fields. It will have been noted that the names of the fields in Tudor and Jacobean surveys were simple, being usually taken from those points of the compass toward which the fields lay with respect to the village — north, east, south, or west. Often in a two-field manor they were named from opposite points, although at King- ton the fields were North and West. The fields again might get their names from the topography of the place, and become Upper 1 For example, the half-virgate of Richard Weller at Handborough, Oxons., that of Robert Sell at Shipton-under-Wychwood, Oxons., that of Joanna Syninge at Ashton Keynes, Wilts, and that of Theron Symes at Welford, Northants. Cf. Appendix I. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 43 and Lower; in a three-field township the third field might be- come Middle field. Other topographical features sometimes gave the hint. At Salford, for example, Wood field was near the wood and Brook field along the stream. Names like these are what may be called the obvious and usual field names. Accord- ingly, if in an early charter we discover two acres in three or four parcels lying in the West field of a township and two other acres similarly subdivided in the East field, the probability is that the grant points to a two-field township. In these cases it is always desirable to find a series of such grants (frequently met with in monastic cartularies), and the evidence is more or less convinc- ing as the region is otherwise known to be or not to be one of two fields. Testimony of this sort has been noted in Appendix II, and may be accepted for what it is worth. If the field names appear fanciful, the grant either has been omitted, or has been included only because it is in keeping with what is otherwise known about the region. Thus far attention has been given only to testimony drawn from descriptions of freeholds or of copyholds (sometimes chang- ing into leaseholds). The third constituent of the manor, the demesne, has not been noticed. It is, in fact, less important than copyholds in helping us determine field systems, since it so often lay without the open fields. Even if it was largely within them it might be irregularly apportioned, as at Salford. If we can be sure, however, that it lay with the tenants’ holdings in the open common fields, the even distribution of its arable between two or three fields is as significant a fact as the like distribution of copyholds. Only occasionally do the extents make this point clear. Often they tell us in what field divisions the demesne lay, but frequently these appear to have been numerous. In such cases either the demesne acres were consolidated and the field names refer to large plats, perhaps closes; or, if the acres were not con- solidated, we have no clue to the relation existing between the numerous areas named and the field system employed. Such non-committal descriptions have to be disregarded. Sometimes in the extents, however, the demesne arable is said to lie equally divided between only two or three fields, and these bear the usual 44 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS field names. In such cases we may conclude that the field system is correctly indicated. Many extents are to be found in a group of documents which for this reason are of significance in the study of field systems. These documents are the inquisitions post mortem, preserved in large numbers among the public records. During a period of about a century (c. 1270-1370) we find inserted in many such enumerations of the property of deceased fief-holders or free- holders extents of their manors. Nearly always the extents are brief, dismissing the demesne acres with an estimate of their an- nual value; but occasionally a note of explanation is added, and this is the item which relates to field systems. It states that one- half or two-thirds of the demesne may be sown each year, and that when so sown the acres are worth a certain amount. The re- maining one-half or one-third, the extent continues, is worth nothing since it lies fallow and — the phrase is sometimes added — “since it lies in common.’”’! Thus we are introduced to what might at first sight seem an equivalent of the two- or three-field system, namely, the two- or three-course rotation of crops. Much, however, depends upon keeping the two subjects distinct. Let it be at once admitted that the existence of a system of two or three fields in any township implies that a two- or three-course method of tillage was there followed. If one-half or one-third of the common arable open-field area lay fallow each year, the parts successively tilled were undoubtedly sown with nearly the same crops year after year. Any series of bailiffs’ accounts will make this clear.2. The reverse of the generalization, however, is not 1 For example, at Corby, Northants, there was a messuage with 180 acres of — arable, ‘‘ unde vi ** possunt seminari per annum quarum quelibet acra valet . . . iii d. . . . et residuum iacet ad Warectam et tunc nihil valet quia in communi ”’ (C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 44 (6)). Cf. the phraseology in Appendix II. 2 At Gamlingay in Cambridgeshire, for instance, the demesne lay in three open fields (Merton College map of 1601). A series of bailiffs’ accounts from the end of the thirteenth century records the sowing of grains during four years, as follows (Merton Col. Recs., nos. 5355-58): — Year Frumentumlet] _ Siligo Dragetumlet] Pisa [et] Avena 21-22 Edw. I [illegible] to qr. 7 bu. 2zoqr. 5bu. 2aqr. 4 ar. 22-23 “ 14 gr. 44 bu. 10 7 29 33 2 4 1 bu. 23-24 “* 12 44 II 4 18 6 I 7bu. 3 73 24-25 “ 16 I 9 2 25 2 2 2 6 2 More spring corn than winter corn was required to sow an acre. THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 45 equally true. A two- or three-course rotation of crops did not necessarily imply a two- or three-field system. If we have evi- dence pointing to the former as characteristic of the tillage of demesne lands, or even of the tillage of the entire township, it does not follow that demesne or tenants’ holdings had their acres equally divided between two or three large fields. All might have been enclosed and yet a two- or three-course rotation of crops have been found acceptable; for this rotation was adaptable to various field systems. Only in connection with two or three large open fields, intermixed acres, and the annual use of one of the fields as common fallow pasture did it become a constituent part of the two- and three-field system. With this in mind we may undertake the interpretation of those phrases of the extents which relate to the tillage of the demesne. If the value of two-thirds of the demesne is estimated but the remaining third is said to be worth nothing because fallow, this is insufficient to assure us that the agricultural system was one of two or three fields. Such a statement was applicable to en- closed demesne where the pasturage of the fallow was not deemed to be of value. Again, it is not sufficient to be told, as we often are, that the demesne lands lay in common “ while unsown’”’; for this remark may have referred to the period after harvest, when under various systems these lands would have been thrown open. We must know that the period of common pasturage extended throughout the year.? Finally, it must be made clear what fraction of the demesne lay fallow and common. Unless it were one-half or one-third, there is no necessary approach to a two- or three-field system. 1 To be sure, unsown demesne did sometimes have a definite value as pasture. In several Essex extents, for example, the arable acres were worth 4 d. “‘ quando seminantur, et quando non seminantur valet inde pastura . . . pretium acre ii d.” (C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 67 (10), Latchingdon, 17 Edw. III). But it is not quite certain that these unsown acres were fallowed. Their value was rather high for fallow stubble, and some sort of grass may have been grown after the corn years. In general, enclosed fallow was probably worth little and so escaped valuation. 2 The description of fifty acres of arable at Wrentham, Suffolk, for instance, states that they were worth 2d. the acre “‘quum seminantur, et quum non seminantur nihil valent quia iacent in communi” (C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 60 (6), 13 Edw. 46 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Even when all the specifications just insisted upon are met, and we are told that one-half or one-third of the demesne lay fallow and common throughout the entire year and for this reason was of no value to the lord, there remains an element of doubt. Did the fraction in question lie in one of two or three large fields ? There is no guarantee that such was the case. Even if, as rarely happens, it be said to lie “in communi campo,” the distribution may have been irregular throughout the commonable area. We have seen it so at Salford, Bedfordshire, in the sixteenth century, and yet the preceding specifications could probably have been met in a description of the demesne there. For our present purpose, which is the determination of those two- and three-field charac- teristics that will enable us to interpret the early evidence, it is sufficient to accept the following working hypothesis: If the arable of the demesne be described in an inquisition-extent as lying one-half or one-third fallow each year, with the fallow acres of no value because commonable, this may be taken as evidence that a two- or three-field system was employed in the township, provided that other testimony shows the system to have been characteristic of the region in question; but if other testimony be against the existence of the two- or three-field system in the county or district in which the township lies, the evidence of the extent will have to be weighed against this other testimony and an independent conclusion reached. Such balancing of evidence must be undertaken in examining the field systems of certain counties of the southeast. In those counties in which there can be no doubt about the general prevalence of the two- and three- field system, the phrases of the extents may be quoted without further discussion. They have been extracted from the inquisi- tions post mortem for a period of ten years (7-16 Edward III), certain others have been added, and in Appendix II all have been placed last in the collection of early evidence relative to each III). In contrast with this vague phrase the account of six hundred acres at Lidgate in the same county is entirely specific. Two hundred of them “ iacent quolibet tertio anno ad warectam et in communi per totum annum et tunc nihil valent ”’; the remaining four hundred “ iace[n]t in communi a tempore asporta- tionis bladorum usque festum Annunciationis beate Marie [i. e., from September till March] ” (ibid., F. 41 (19), 9 Edw. III). THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 47 county.! By this device their somewhat questionable testimony need not be confused with other authority. A final characteristic of the two- and three-field system is im- plicit in these statements made by the extents relative to the demesne. This feature is the existence of common rights of pasturage throughout the year over the field which lay fallow, and, when the other field or fields were not under crops, over them as well. The meadows, too, we know, were thrown open after the hay was removed. Only slight traces of these usages appear in the sixteenth-century surveys. At times after each copyhold entry we are told what were the tenant’s rights of pas- ture,” but more often the rights over the arable fields and meadows were assumed to be inherent in the system and were not men- tioned. Pasturage rights in the fell, the marsh, or the moor re- ceived more attention, especially if such waste land had to be stinted; earlier legal documents, too, especially cases before the courts and agreements between neighboring lords, tell something about these rights of pasture. All this, however, is of no immedi- ate interest in discriminating between field systems. Practically all townships at an early time had their waste, in which tenants had common of pasture. One influence only the waste had upon the tillage of the arable fields, and this arose from the relative size of the two areas. If in any township the waste was extensive in comparison with the open-field arable, utilization of the latter for pasturage might be a matter of little moment, the former sufficing for the cattle and sheep. In consequence, deviation from a strict two- or three-field system in the cultivation of the arable and in the rotation of crops became relatively easy. This aspect of things will claim attention in the counties of the northwest, where for -the most part the waste did predominate over the arable. It may also have had much to do with the irregularities which we shall discover in the arable fields of townships situated within forest areas.’ Though seldom specifically noticed in the manorial documents, the right of pasturage over the arable fallow was so bound up with 1 The phraseology of each extent is noted in the transcripts. * Cf. Appendix IT. 3 Cf. pp. 84-88, below. 48 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the nature of the two- and three-field system that it would not be altogether incorrect to call it the determining idea of that system. Why divide the arable into two or three (possibly four or six) large unbroken fields ? Convenience would, of course, be served. It was simpler to have the strips which were to be tilled in a par- — ticular year gathered within one-half or two-thirds of the arable area than to have them scattered throughout its entire extent. Yet dissemination of strips was by no means abhorrent to the mediaeval peasant mind. What was really gained by keeping the arable furlongs in a compact area was convenience of another sort. It was the possibility of letting the cattle range without hindrance over a large part of the township. Had any furlongs within a large fallow area been subjected to cultivation while the rest of the area was utilized for fallow pasture, it would have been necessary to fence the cultivated portions. Such an incon- venience was obviated by large and simple boundaries, and the easy utilization of the fallow for pasture was what lay behind a system of two or three comprehensive fields. In East Anglia different pasturage provisions deflected the field boundaries, and with them the field system, from the normal type. Important as is the relation between common rights of pasture and the two- and three-field system, the records at our disposal seldom enable us to argue from the former to the latter. Since references to common rights of pasture are infrequent even in elaborate sixteenth-century surveys, the less can they be expected in the briefer early documents. It is rather in the direction of disproof that certain items will be of avail. In the East Anglian evidence there are references to pasturage arrangements of a sort not realizable under a two- or three-field system. In consequence of this (and of other circumstances) it will be possible to maintain that the system was not there employed. On the other hand, whenever in the case of two- or three-field townships no informa- tion regarding pasturage rights is to be had and no contradictory indications appear, it may fairly be assumed that the sheep and cattle were each year pastured over a large compact arable field. If this characteristic of the two- and three-field system is seldom perceptible in the early documents, such is not the case with the THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM 49 other features which have been noted above. However brief the terrier or grant, it will indicate whether arable open field tended to preponderate over enclosures; it will show how evenly the arable was divided between two or three fields; very likely it will be the description of a copyhold; it may by good chance refer to a vir- gate, a bovate, ora fraction thereof. If our source of information be an extent rather than a terrier, it may, if it relates to a two- or three-field township, either apportion the demesne acres between two or three fields, or it may state that every second or third year one-half or one-third of the demesne was fallow and had no value because it lay in common. Such are the criteria to be ap- plied in sifting the evidence now to be considered. CHAPTER II THE EARLIER HISTORY OF THE Two- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM RELYING upon the characteristics of the two- and three-field system deduced from the comprehensive evidence of the six- teenth-century surveys, we may now turn to the more fragmen- tary and, for the most part, earlier testimony touching the system in question. It has been collected and arranged by counties in Appendix II. Much of it is in the nature of terriers of single holdings found in rentals or deeds of conveyance, but only such evidence as satisfies the criteria indicated in the last chapter has been admitted. In particular, reasonably equal dis- tribution of arable acres between two or three fields has been insisted upon. Descriptions of freeholds and leaseholds have been utilized when they give unmistakable information about field systems and when copyholds have not been available. Items relative to small holdings have not been excluded if the acres in question lay equally divided between fields which bore the usual names. Lastly, the statements of the extents concerning fallow and commonable demesne have been appended whenever they appear pertinent. This collection of early evidence ought, it would seem, to enable us to answer certain questions regarding the two- and three-field system. At what time did it first appear in England ? Throughout what territory did it prevail ? Were two-field or three-field townships the earlier ? Were the former sometimes transformed into the latter ? And what were the respective areas appropriated by each group? Answers to these questions can be secured from Appendix II, although they may not always be so precise as might be desired. Most unsatisfactory is the testimony regarding the first ques- tion — that which asks about origins. The difficulty, as is usual with such queries, arises from paucity of evidence. From the end of the twelfth century, when the feet of fines begin and when 50 EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 51 grants of land first become specific and descriptive, we have acceptable information; but between the Conquest and the reign of Richard I the charters disdain field detail. So, too, for the most part do those of the Anglo-Saxon period. Since it is very desirable, however, to have some conception about field arrangements at this time, fragmentary evidence may well be attended to. The testimony of the charters and laws of Anglo-Saxon England relative to open arable fields has been noticed by Nasse and Seebohm.! These writers point out that certain suggestive phrases and a few definite statements establish the existence of common arable fields in England long before the Conquest; but neither writer adduces any evidence which shows that the system employed was a two- or three-field one.? Since the charters are more remunerative in information than the laws, we may turn first to them. Such pertinent matter as they contain is usually found in the boundaries of the land which they convey. These boundaries, which follow the Latin body of the charter, are nearly always in Anglo-Saxon. Often they are later than the charter itself, but by how much it is seldom possible to determine. Except for a few brief early ones, they date from the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries. Since for the most part they bound large parcels of land — the five, ten, or twenty hides conveyed — they often coincide with the bound- arles of a township. Usually, too, they refer to striking features of the landscape — roads, hills, ditches, streams, groves, trees, barrows, and the like; and in so far as this is the case they give no information relevant to our subject. Certain grants, however, were less extensive than a township, and it might be expected that the boundaries of these would 1 Nasse, Agricultural Community, pp. 18-26; Seebohm, English Village Com- munity, pp. 105-117. 2 Nasse (op. cit., p. 25) was inclined to see a three-field arrangement in King Eadwig’s grant of twenty hides to Abingdon monastery (Kemble, Codex Diplomati- cus, 1216). The specification runs, ‘‘ Dis sindon da landgemaero Saesse burlandes to Abbendune, Saet is gadertang on preo genamod, Saet is Hengestes ig and Seofo- canwyr6 and Wihtham.” Unfortunately for Nasse’s interpretation, it turns out that Hinksey and Witham are two townships just west of Oxford. 52 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS immediately reveal the existence of an open-field system. One hide subtracted from a five-hide township should, under a two- or three-field system, comprise many scattered parcels in the arable fields; ! and the bounding of such a hide should involve a reference to the existence of these scattered acres. Such refer- ences, as it happens, are seldom found. Wherefore Nasse and Seebohm have argued that in these cases there grew up the con- vention of giving the boundaries of the entire township, just as if the latter were conveyed im toto.2, The convention, they ex- plain, would have arisen because the intermixture of acres made difficult any exact definition of boundary. Reversing the argu- ment, they conclude that, if part of a township is described with the boundary phrases employed elsewhere relative to the entire township, this circumstance proves that intermixed acres existed. In all they cite six instances to establish such a usage. Thereupon they infer that the general employment in Anglo-Saxon charters of concise boundaries for relatively small transfers of land is evidence of the wide extension of open-field arable at an early date. Before this conclusion can be admitted, the six instances from which they argue that a grant of part of a township and another of the complete township employ the same boundaries deserve re- examination. One instance relates to Kingston, Berkshire.’ Two charters of almost the same date describe respectively thir- teen mansae and seven cassati, the boundaries being alike. We are not, however, left to arrive at the existence of intermixed arable acres by inference; for in both charters we find the pre- amble, “‘ Dis sind sa landgemaero [boundaries] to Cyngestune aecer onder aecere.” The last phrase, “‘aecer onder aecere,”’ is so unusual that there might be doubt about its meaning were it not for the explanation vouchsafed in another charter. Three cassati at Hendred, Berkshire, transferred in 962, are left without boundaries; but where the mefae are usually inserted we are told, “ Dises landgemaera syn gemaene sua daet lid aefre aecer under 1 Unless, as often happened at a later period, it was consolidated demesne. 2 Nasse, op. cit., pp. 24, 25; Seebohm, op. cit., p. 111. 3 Cod. Dip., 1276, 1277 (¢. 977)- EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 53 aecer,” “The boundaries are common in such way that the arable acres are intermixed.”! This clarifies the phraseology of the Kingston charters. The preamble to them wishes to tell us that the acres were intermixed. It is equivalent to explaining why the scribe gave the boundaries of an entire township rather than attempt the impossible task of locating scattered acres. We may therefore agree with Nasse and Seebohm in their immediate inference that open arable fields are referred to in the Kingston charters, but we are not obliged to adopt their generalization. It appears rather that, if the boundaries of a township are used to describe a part of the township, this device is explained by a statement about intermixed acres.2 When such explana- tion is wanting, inferences as to intermixed acres may be un- warranted. Another citation of Nasse’s and one of Seebohm’s are not more happy. The latter is concerned with two charters which relate to Stanton, Somerset, and employ very similar boundaries. One conveys two and one-half hides, the other seven and one-half.* But the former distinctly states, ‘‘ Dis synt 3a landgemaera to Stantune [the entire township],” and after the recital continues, “Donne is binnan sam tyn hydun Aelfsiges [the grantee’s] pridde healfe hide.” The justification for the use of the boundaries of the township in connection with a part of it is specific: the two and one-half hides lay within the ten hides. Nasse’s Waltham instance is of the same sort;+ for the fourteen hides which King Eadmund booked are expressly said to lie “ binnan sam pritigum hidum landgemaero ”’ — within the thirty hides whose boundaries are given. At Waltham, as at Stanton, the use of the boundaries of an entire township when a part of the township was to be con- veyed appeared so unusual as to need explanation. Two other groups of charters to which we are referred are not convincing. In 903, as Seebohm points out, King Edward gave to his “‘princeps”’ Ordlaf twenty cassati at Stanton, Wiltshire; in 1 Cod. Dip., 1240. 2 Nasse cites the explanatory phrase of the Kingston charters, but Seebohm re- fers to it only in a note upon another point (op. cit., p. 112, n. 3). 3 Cod. Dip., 502 (an. 963), 516 (an. 965). 4 Tbid., 1134 (am. 940). 54 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS 957 King Edwig conveyed to Bishop Osulf twenty mansae at the same place.! There is a slight if not a very exact correspond- ence between the descriptions of the boundaries of the two grants. Assume, as Seebohm did, that the boundaries are the same. Why should each twenty mansae (or cassati) be looked upon as part of a larger township ? Why should they not refer to the same area — perhaps to a township of twenty hides? That the grantees in each charter were different need cause no difficulty. Between 903 and 957 the twenty mansae may well have reverted to the crown. The first grant was of the sort which did revert; it had just done so in 903. The boundaries to which Nasse refers at Wolverley, Worcestershire, were probably alike for the same reason.2. In one charter the king gave two mansae to one of his ministri, in the other two mansae to the cathedral church at Wor- cester. Both grants, to be sure, occurred within the same year. It is not improbable, however, that there was a speedy reversion and regrant, while the identity of the mansae conveyed is insured by the circumstance that the first grantee (Pulfferd) gave his name to the land. A last instance is cited by Nasse. In the middle of the tenth century eighteen mansae and twenty-two mansae were conveyed at Welford, Berkshire, with substantially the same boundaries.* No phrase explains why this is so, nor do the eighteen seem to have been a part of the twenty-two. Nasse apparently thought them constituents of a forty-hide manor, bounded similarly be- cause arable acres were intermixed. The first part of this assump- tion seems justifiable. In Domesday Book, Welford is set down as a manor “formerly” rated at fifty hides. What Nasse forgot is that a manor of this size was usually composite, containing within its bounds more than one township. A comparison of the Domesday map with the modern one reveals Welford as such a manor. This being the case, the eighteen and the twenty- 1 Cod. Dip., 335 (an. 903), 467 (an. 957). 2 Tbid., 291, 292 (an. 866). 3 Ibid., 427 (an. 949), 1198 (an. 956). 4 “TR. E. se defendit pro | hidis et modo pro xxxvii (i. 580).” 5 Cf. Victoria History of Berkshire, i. 323. Several hamlets near Welford do not appear on the Domesday map, e. g., Easton, Wickham, Warmstall, Clapton, Shef- ford. EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS so two hides can scarcely be referred to a single township of forty hides. Since, however, the agrarian unit within which arable acres were intermixed was the township rather than the com- posite manor, these charters tell us nothing about a usage such as Nasse argues for. To be convincing, he should have pointed to a small number of hides (less than ten) bounded with the boundaries of the township within which they are supposed to have lain. Inasmuch as neither he nor Seebohm cites instances of this sort which are not self-explanatory, it does not seem safe, in cases where we cannot compare the boundaries of fractional and entire townships, to infer that the boundaries of small grants were frequently those of townships. Without this inference it is not possible to argue that the general character of Anglo- Saxon charter boundaries goes to prove the early prevalence of intermixed arable acres in England. Another aspect of the boundaries, however, better endures examination. This Seebohm pointed out,! and this Vinogradoff has emphasized.2 They remark that in some enumerations are found words and phrases drawn from the open-field vocabulary, phrases which must naturally have occurred wherever the bound- ary of a township ran for a space along an open arable field. The appearance of these expressions in the description of metae, they argue, goes to prove the existence of arable common fields. Prominent among phrases of this kind is forierthe or heafod- aecer.2 It was the term applied to the long headland upon which the strips of a furlong abutted, and would scarcely have been used in a region not characterized by intermixed strips. Garae- cer, or gore acre, the small irregular triangle in the corners of furlongs, also appears. This term was less essentially bound up with an open-field system than was “headland,”’ being applicable to any parcel of land thus shaped; still, it was one of the phrases of the open-field vocabulary, and its use as a landmark may be significant. Relative to hlinc, so often found and so strongly 1 Op. cit., p. 107. 2 English Society in the Eleventh Century, p. 278. 3 For early instances, see Cod. Dip., 437, 1080. 4 e. g., ibid., 1080. 56 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS insisted upon by Seebohm and Vinogradoff, there seems to be no reason for supposing that in the boundaries it meant anything more than hillside. Such has been and is its usual connotation. Seebohm explains that terraces of hillside arable strips were in the nineteenth century called ‘ lynches ”’;! but the term seems seldom to have had this significance in sixteenth-century surveys or in earlier field documents.? Its application to the terraces is probably late, and due to an extension of the original meaning. | Among the phrases of the boundaries, therefore, that which most clearly refers to open fields is heafodaecer, and the first appearance of this is in the tenth century. Apart from occasional open-field words which by chance crept into the boundaries, the charters contain a few specific references to the open-field system. Nasse first cited four of them, all in tenth-century grants to Abingdon monastery, and still among our best bits of evidence.* Seebohm added one reference, Vino- gradoff three,® and Maitland four, two of them credible and two doubtful.6 Ten of these citations, together with nine others, may now be given as embodying the most convincing evidence which the charters of the Anglo-Saxon period proffer regarding open-field conditions: — 1 Op; cit., D-:5- 2 The Hertfordshire instance cited below on (p. 377, n. 2) is unusual. 3 Op. cit., pp. 22, 24. In the following list the four are nos. 1169, 1234, 1240, 1278, in Kemble’s Codex. 4 Op. cit., p. 112, n. (Cod. Dip., 1213). 5 English Society, pp. 259, 277, 279 (Cod. Dip., 793, 503; Cartl. Sax., 1130). 6 Domesday Book, pp. 365-366. The credible ones are here given: Cod. Dip., 339, 586. The doubtful ones are from Kent and have not the characteristics of two- or three-field grants: ibid., 241 (an. 839), 259 (am. 845). Of the latter the muros civitatis x iugera cum viculis praedictis et in aquilone praedictae civitatis xiiii iugera histis terminibus circumiacentibus. . . . ” The boundaries which follow indicate that the fourteen acres formed a single parcel, while the ten acres seem to have been within the walls. The other Kentish charter conveys “ xviiii. . . iugera hoc est vi iugera ubi nominatur et Uuihtbaldes hlawe et in australe parte puplice strate altera vi et in australe occidentale que puplice strate ubi appellatur Uueoweraget in confinioque Deoringlondes vii iugero. . . .”’ The equal division of acres here does indeed suggest a threefold plan, but the awkward location of the three subdivisions with reference to highways rather than fields shows that the arrangement was accidental. Kent, as we shall see, was one of the English counties in which the three-field system did not come to prevail. EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 57 Date 904 953 958 961 962 963 not earlier than 964 966 974 ¢. 977 982 985 987 Reference ! 339 1169 1213 1234 1240 993 Caril. Sax., 1145 531 586 1276 1278 648 658 County, Village, and Description Worcs., Beferburnan (Barbourn). ‘Eac hio sellaé him be befer burnan pa ludadingwic] ec paer to sextig aecera eardlondes be sudan beferburnan J oer sextig be NOLOAN ee Berks, Cusanhricge (Currage in Chieveley). Grant of v cassati, After the boundaries occurs, “‘ And on dan gemanan lande gebyra® Sarto fif and sixti aeccera.” Berks, Draitune (Drayton). Grantof x mansae. ‘ Dis sind 6a landgemaera to Draitune, aecer under aecer.’’ Berks, Ae®deredingetune (Addington in Hungerford). Grant of ix mansae. ‘“‘ Das nigon hida licggead on gemang ooran gedallande feldlaes gemane and maeda gemane and yréland gemaene.”’ Berks, Henneride (Hendred). Grant of iii cassati. “Pises landgemaera syn gemaene sua Saet lid aefre aecer under aecer.” Wilts, Afene (Avon). Grant of iii cassati, ‘ singulis iugeribus mixtim in communi rure huc illucque dis- persis.” Wilts, Pinterburnan (Winterbourn). Grant of x mansae. “Dis syndon para fif hida land gemaera Into Jinter- burnan be pestan tune syndries landes. . Ponne syndon pa fif hida be Eastan tune gemaenes lan- des on gemaenre mearce spa spa hit paer to be limped.” Gloucs., Clifforda (Clifford Chambers). Three-life lease of ii mansae: “ oder healf hid gedaellandes and healf hid on #aere ege.”’ Gloucs., Cudinclea (Cuddingley). Grant of i mansa. After the boundaries occurs, “‘ and xxx aecra on $aem twaem feldan dallandes widutan.” Berks, Cyngestun (Kingston). Grant of xiii mansae. “ Dis sind a landgemaero to Cyngestune aecer onder aecere.” Boundaries, ‘‘ on 6a heafodaeceras.” Berks[?], Ceorlatun. Grant of v cassati. “ Rus namque praetaxatum manifestis undique terminis minus divi- ditur, quia iugera altrinsecus copulata adiacent.”’ Hants, Harewillan (Harewell). Grant of xvii cassatz, “ segetibus mixtis.”’ Hants, Fearnlaeh (Farleigh). Grant of iii mansae at Westwood and iii perticae at Farleigh. After the boundaries of Westwood is, ‘“‘ Donnae licgeaé $a Preo gyrda on odaere haealfae fromae aet Faearnlaeagae on gaemaenum landae.” 1 The references, with the exception of two to Birch’s Cartularium Saxonicum, are to the num- bers in Kemble’s Codex Diplomaticus. In volume iii of the Cartularium there is a table showing the corresponding numbers in the two works. 58 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Date Reference County, Village, and Description 990 674 Worcs., Uppdrop (Upthorp). Three-life lease of ii hida to two brothers: “‘and se ealdra haebbe 8a preo aeceras, and se iungra Sone feordan, ge innor, ge utter.” C. 972-992 Cartl. Northants, Oxanege (Oxney). Possessions of Peter- Sax., 1130 borough abbey. “ Pid utan pan ige sixti sticca landes pet is ameten to xxx aecerum. . . . ” 995 692 Gloucs., Dumbeltun (Dumbleton). Grant of “‘duas man- sas et dimidiam . . . praedictum rus, quod in com- muni terra situm est.” 1002 1295 Gloucs., Dumoltun (Dumbleton). Grant of xxiiii man- sae, “‘ x et vii in occidentali parte fluminis Esingburnan . ac duas in orientali eiusdem torrentis climate, sorte communes populari aet Eastune, necnon et v [in] locis silvaticis. . a 849 262, App. Worcs., Coftun (Cofton). Boundary, ‘“‘ up be $am gemae- {actually x nan lande.”’ or xi cent.] 1050 793 Oxons., Sandforda (Sandford). Grant of iiii mansae. “ Dis sind da landgemaera to Sandforda on am gem- annan lande.”’ What is most immediately to be deduced from these nineteen citations is the fact that, while none of them are earlier than the tenth century, there did exist at that time so-called common land. Frequently the passages imply nothing more. The sixty-five acres at Currage were ‘“‘ on san gemanan lande,”! as were the three roods at Farleigh and the four mansae at Sandford. A boundary at Cofton ran “‘ up be 3am gemaenan lande.”’ The Hendred charter, as we have seen, amplifies the term ‘“‘ gemaene ”’ enough to explain that its lands lay “aecer under aecer,” a phrase which, along with the mention of “ haefod aecer’’ in the boundaries, must lead us to agree with Nasse and Seebohm in see- ing at Kingston intermixed arable acres. ‘‘ Aecer under aecer ”’ is also used to describe the situation at Drayton. 1 Nasse, arguing for early convertible husbandry as applied to the waste, sees in this “ a certain portion of the common pasturage . . . taken up and applied tem- porarily to arable purposes” (op. cit., p. 23). Since there is no other reference in Anglo-Saxon documents to convertible husbandry of this kind (Nasse’s other citation implies, as many charters do, merely proportionate rights in the waste), it seems better to interpret the Currage phrase as descriptive of five hides of demesne to which sixty-five acres in the common arable fields were appurtenant. EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 59 The Addington account of nine hides is valuable in that it further amplifies our conception of “ gemaene land.’”’ These hides lay “on gemang odran gedallande,” and their “ yrdland”’ was ‘“‘gemaene.”’ Nothing could more fittingly describe holdings in open field than to say that they lay in the midst of other divided land, with the arable (as well as the pastures and meadows) in common. Gedalland, or divided land, was, then, the technical Anglo-Saxon phrase for intermixed arable acres. Its use may imply that the division of the arable had passed beyond a stage of yearly allotment to one of permanent possession. It may, on the other hand, imply nothing about permanence of possession, but may refer only to the minute subdivision to which the arable had been subjected. Whichever the case, it is a more specific term than ‘‘ gemaene land,” a phrase applicable to common pas- tures and common meadows as well as to arable. The implications of gedalland once clear, a brief reference to it in the Clifford charter is self-explanatory. Here one-half of two mansae was on an island, and the other half was “ gedael- land.” But the term seldom occurs in the charters, being of more importance in a well-known passage of the laws. The par- cels of the ‘‘ divided’ land were, as Vinogradoff conjectures, probably known as “‘sticca,”’ sixty of which at Oxney were equivalent to thirty acres.! The term contrasted with gedalland as indicative of ownership in severalty was ‘‘ syndrig land.”’ In the Winterbourne charter such were the five hides to the west of the village, and pains are taken to contrast them with the five hides of “‘ gemaene land ” to the east. The former must have been what would at a later day have been called demesne, relative to which common rights were non-existent. Latin equivalents of the Anglo-Saxon phrases are easy to inter- pret. At Dumbleton two and a half mansae were “ in communi terra,’ and in another charter two mansae were “‘ sorte communes populari,’”? common and in common lot. The phrase “ aecer under aecer ” got itself translated as ‘‘ segetibus mixtis ”’ at Hare- well. At ‘ Ceorlatun ”’ the circumlocution was longer, ‘‘ iugera 1 Cf. the above list, and his English Society, p. 279. 60 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS altrinsecus copulata adiacent.”” Clearest was the description at Avon, “acres scattered here and there intermixedly in the common arable field.”’ At Upthrop we can see the acres getting intermixed. Two brothers so divided two hides there that in all places the elder had three acres, the younger the fourth. The division would scarcely have been described in this way had it looked to the creation of two compact holdings. Instead of this, we may assume that each plot of the two hides was divided and two holdings of scattered parcels created. Only two of the passages suggest what kind of field system was in use, and these Maitland has already quoted. At Cuddingley in Gloucestershire there were thirty acres of “[ge]dalland ” in the two fields, a pretty clear reference to a two-field system. Some- what more questionable is the other passage. Appended to the grant of a parcel of land within the city of Worcester were sixty acres of arable to the south of “ Beferburnan”’ and sixty to the north. If Beferburnan (Barbourn) was then a hamlet, as it is today, the description would be not unlike many later ones which indicate the presence of two fields by the statement that a certain number of acres lay on one side of a village and the same number on the other side.1_ In the charter of 904, however, the name Barbourn may have designated merely a stream. If so, there is no particular significance in the passage, since land divided by a brook may have been consolidated. It chances that this Barbourn charter is earlier by fifty years than any other of the list. Indeed, most of our citations date from the second half of the tenth century. If, then, the Bar- bourn reference be excluded, our first reliable charter testimony touching open fields in England dates from these decades. That we have nothing earlier is perhaps due to the comparative rarity of genuine charters before g50, and to the very brief references to boundaries which the genuine ones contain. One other feature of the passages quoted is of interest. All refer to townships located within seven counties, and these are counties of the southern midlands. Berkshire, Hampshire, Wilt- 1 Cf. Appendix II. EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 61 shire, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Oxfordshire, and North- amptonshire form a compact area, a part of the larger territory within which we shall soon see the two- and three-field system domiciled. The testimony of the charters is, therefore, in accord with that of more detailed but later evidence. Briefly stated, it is this: in seven counties of the southern midlands some twenty charters of the tenth and eleventh centuries testify to the existence of open common arable fields, and one or two of them probably reflect to a two-field system. Turning to the Anglo-Saxon laws, we find a single passage of first-rate importance relative to open fields, but we find little besides. The passage in question, which has been quoted by Nasse and Seebohm,! runs as follows: — “Gif ceorlas gaerstun haebben gemaenne od%e oper gedalland to tynanne, 7 haebben sume getyned hiora dael, sume naebben, 7 etten hiora gemaenan aeceras od%e gaers, gin pa ponne pe daet geat agan, 7 gebete pam odrum, pe hiora diel getynedne haebben, pone aewerdlan pe daer gedon sie.”’ ” What gives this regulation a unique importance is its date. Ine’s laws belong to the end of the seventh century, to the years between 688 and 694.3 At this time there existed, as the extract shows, common meadow and “ other gedalland ” which it was the duty of the tenants to hedge. If one of them failed to do his share of the hedging, and cattle destroyed the growing grass or grain, he was responsible to his co-tenants. Such a conception of gedalland corresponds with what we have learned of it in the tenth century. The term was then applied to common inter- mixed arable acres. The gedalland of Ine’s law was not pasture, since pasture would not have been divided. It was “ other 1 Nasse, op. cit., p. 19; Seebohm, op. cit., p. 110. 2 F. Liebermann, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen (3 vols., Halle, 1898-1912), i. 106. “ Tf ceorls have common meadow or other gedalland to hedge and some have hedged their share and some have not, [and if stray cattle] eat their common acres or grass, let those who are answerable for the opening go and give compensation to those who have hedged their share for the injury which may have been done.” 3 Liebermann, “‘ Ueber. die Gesetze Ines von Wessex,” in: Mélanges d’ Histoire offerts d M. Charles Bémont . . . (Paris, 1913), p. 32. Liebermann recognizes in the above passage “ ein Dorf mit Gemeinwiese und Gemenglage der Aecker ” (ibid., 26). ; 62 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS than’ meadow. It must have been arable. The arable acres must further have been intermixed, else the cattle, once through the hedge, could not have ranged over all of them. Common intermixed arable acres in England are therefore discernible at the end of the seventh century. The law assures us of their existence two centuries before the charters give testimony. In another respect the law agrees with the charters. Both lo- cate the early arable open field in the western and southern mid- lands. The counties to which the charters refer were (with the possible exception of Northamptonshire) of West Saxon origin.! That the laws of Ine were applicable to the same territory at the end of the ninth century is shown by Alfred’s recension of them. Wessex and the southern edge of Mercia were thus the regions within which we see arable open field pretty clearly at the end of the seventh century and quite unmistakably in the tenth. Apart from their implications regarding the existence of com- mon arable fields, our earliest sources tell us little. No reference to a three-field township is vouchsafed, and only twice (in the tenth century) is there probable reference to a two-field township. But meagre as is the contribution of Anglo-Saxon documents to our knowledge of field systems, that of the first Norman century is not more ample, and we may pass at once to the times of Richard and John. Only with the definite evidence of the late twelfth and of the thirteenth century do we first come upon townships whose arable fields were clearly two or three. Since both sorts were then reasonably numerous, it is at length possible to ascertain the area throughout which the two- and three-field system prevailed in mediaeval England. Later testimony fills in doubtful stretches of the boundary, until by the sixteenth century the circuit can be pretty well determined. From the available data which have been collected in Appendix II its reconstruction may now be attempted.? In the north the county of Northumberland must for the time be excluded. The three fields which some documents seem to 1 Chadwick, Origin of the English Nation, pp. 3, 5, map facing p. 11. 2 The result is shown on the map facing the title-page. : EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 63 disclose there manifest certain questionable features, and will best be discussed in a later chapter which treats of the field system of the Border.! In Durham we are on secure ground, although the evidence is relatively late. The survey of Ingleton, which hasalready been quoted to illustrate the three-field system,’ is one of a series, several members of which are similar toit. All the townships thus described lie in the southern part of the county in the flat region which stretches from Durham to the Tees. The episcopal city thus becomes the northern outpost of the three- field system. In Yorkshire, the East Riding and much of the North Riding furnish evidence of the existence of two- or three-field townships. The West Riding is more chary in this respect, for in the moun- tainous western part the system cannot be discerned. Keeping to the east, the boundary of two- and three-field tillage follows the coast until, on reaching Boston, it turns inland to exclude the fen country. Parts of the counties of Lincoln, North- ampton, Huntingdon, and Cambridge (the Isle of Ely) now fall outside of it, though by far the larger part of each county re- mains within it. From southeastern Cambridgeshire the line turns sharply to the southwest, follows the hills which separate Hertfordshire from Bedfordshire, passes on along the ridges of the Chilterns through southern Buckinghamshire and Oxford- shire, crosses Berkshire east of Reading, keeps near the eastern boundary of Hampshire, until, on reaching the South Downs, it follows them eastward into Sussex as they stretch on to lose themselves in the Channel at Beachy Head. All the south- eastern counties from Norfolk to Surrey, together with a large part of Sussex, are thus excluded. The western boundary of the two- and three-field area begins in western Dorsetshire, passes north across Somerset including two-thirds of that county, crosses by the forest of Dean into Herefordshire, embraces most of this county and its neighbor Shropshire, passes northeast through Staffordshire and Derby- shire into Yorkshire, where it cuts off the western edge of the county as it continues to Durham. Three areas are excluded 1 Cf. below, pp. 210 sq. 2 Cf. p. 36, above. 64 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS on the west and north: Cornwall, Devon, and western Somerset; Wales with Monmouthshire; and the counties of the northwest, Cheshire, Lancashire, western Yorkshire, Westmorland, Cum- berland, and possibly Northumberland. Within the boundaries thus drawn lay at least half the soil of England, and the coun- ties comprised are for the most part known as the northern and southern midlands. For brevity, therefore, and because it is not altogether inappropriate, the term midland system will often be employed henceforth in referring to two- and three-field arrangements. There is one stretch of the boundary just indicated which is not borne out by the citations of Appendix II. This is the link which embraces the counties of Hereford and Shropshire. The early evidence in support of the existence of a three-field system in these counties is relatively so meagre that it seems best to set it forth separately and in detail. It will be remembered that testimony has already been adduced from Jacobean surveys to show the presence of three-field townships in the two counties. Especially at Stockton and its hamlets in northern Herefordshire have three fields been discerned, and the Shropshire hamlets bordering upon Claverley Holme and Warfield Holme appear also to have had rather consistently three arable fields. But little further sixteenth-century evidence is available, and, as we shall see, there were many irregularities in Herefordshire fields at that time.! Still later, too, only three or four of all the Herefordshire enclosure awards bespeak three fields.?, For these reasons early evidence is the more to be desired. The system, if existent, soon began to decline and can have been intact only in its youthful days. What, then, say the early charters and extents? The Herefordshire evidence is more slight than that from the neighboring county. We have no difficulty in discovering that a three-course rotation of crops was later in favor on demesne lands, but the demesne in question probably did not lie in open field. An extent of Luston, a manor of Leominster priory, how- 1 Cf. pp. 93 sqg., below. 2 Cf. pp. 142-143, below. 3 The surveyors of the lands of the home manor of the abbey of Dore explain: “* And wher also some parte of the arable lands of the sayd demeain . . . is not EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 65 ever, states that in 1 Edward III 150 of the demesne acres lay in Tuffenhull field, 140 in Breshull field, and 125 in Wondersback field, a description which seems indicative of a three-field town- ship.1 A similar situation may be perceived in a charter of 1273 which transfers the “‘ quartam partem unius virgate terre de Luda que iacet inter agros de Mortuna.”? This quarter-virgate of Lyde, which lay within the fields of the neighboring hamlet of Morton, had its acres equally divided among three fields: — “viii acre sunt in cultura que dicitur parve spire ager [the following re-grant adding] quarum v sunt ultra Waribroc, tres vero citra in cultura que dicitur Preostecroft et vii acre sunt in cultura que dicitur West field et vii acre sunt in cultura que dicitur Sudfeld quarum iii sunt sub Dodenhulle et iii apud pontem de Ludebroc. ”’ lyck good as the more parte therof is and for that the same arable lands, by all marks as the[y] severally lye, every thyrd year lye fallow, we in consyderatyn therof have valued all the same arable lands togethers in grose al on’ hole com- munibus annis. ... There be in severall fylds of the sayd demeains of arable 32 Hen. VIII). 1 John Price, An Historical and Topographical Account of Leominster and its Vicinity (Ludlow, 1795), pp. 151 sg. In the priory’s other townships two- or three- field arrangements are not suggested. At Hope the demesne consisted of 150 acres in Hhenhope and 120 in Brounesfield, improbable names for township fields. At Stockton, in the parish of Kimbolton, the fields were three (or five), but the division of acres among them was unequal. In Whitebroc field were 125 acres, in the field of Conemers and in Alvedon 192, in the field of Redweye and in Stalling 208. Ivington seems at first glance to have had three fields, since the demesne arable comprised 144 acres in West field, 132 in the “‘ field against the Par,” and 146 acres in Merrell. It chances, however, that the fields of Ivington are again met with in a fifteenth-century Leominster cartulary, where transfers of six acres and four acres give specific locations (Cott. MS., Domit. A ITI, ff. 231, 2310). Of the six acres, two lay “‘ in campo qui vocatur le merele,” two “ iuxta parcum de Ivynton,”’ and two “in campo de Brereley qui dicitur Westefeld ” in two parcels. Of the four, two were “in campo qui vocatur le Wortheyn”’ and two “in campo qui vocatur le Stockyng.” The fields of the first grant are those in which, according to the earlier document, the demesne was situated. Hence it is disconcerting to learn that West field is a field of Brierley, an adjacent hamlet. When further we find two new fields appearing in the second grant, the three-field character of Ivington, suggested at first, becomes problematical. 2 W.»W. Capes, Charters and Records of Hereford Cathedral (Hereford, 1908), p: 23. 66 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Although this description gains in value because the division of a fractional virgate is in question, it must be admitted that two instances would constitute slight proof of the early existence of a three-field system in the county, did they stand alone. From near-by Shropshire, however, more satisfactory early data are available. There can, of course, be no doubt about the existence of common fields in this county. Later descriptions of — monastic properties drawn up in 31 Henry VIII continually locate the arable acres “ in communibus campis.”’! Occasionally they give more specific information and mention three fields. At Norton in the parish of Wroxeter there were held at the will of the lord two messuages, two crofts, and ‘‘in quolibet campo com- muni trium camporum ibidem . . . ten dayeserth.”’? Just over the county border in the parish of Gnosall, Staffordshire, Lilles- hall monastery had a messuage, a croft, and arable land “in tribus campis communibus ibidem.”’* A copyhold of the monas- tery of Much Wenlock comprised “xx acras terre arabilis iacentes in campo ibidem vocato West- wodfeld Xvili acras ibidem in Alden hill feld versus Estp’ xxii acras in campo vocato overfeld. ”’ 4 In general, however, these monastic properties are described with brevity, and we turn to earlier documents. In 5 Edward III a three-course rotation of crops was employed upon the demesne lands at Ernewood and Hughley, one-third of the acres being sown with wheat.’ But this prowes little. More instructive is the fact that in the fourteenth century the demesne lands of the manors of three of the largest abbeys in the county, Shrews- bury, Lilleshall, and Much Wenlock, were so tilled that one-third of the arable each year lay both fallow and in common.® Although such tillage is not conclusive proof that the demesne was distrib- uted among three open common arable fields, it does, we have 1 Land Rev., M. B. 184, ff. 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 184f, 190f, 210, 228b, 234, 236, etc. 2 Ibid., f. 18. 3 Tbid., f. 150. 4 Tbid., f. 134). 5 Exch. Anc. Extents, no. 68. 6 “ Tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi” (Add. MS. 6165, ff. 37, 43, 51). EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 67 ‘seen, make this probable.!. With regard to the demesne arable of another manor little doubt about the apportionment remains. At Faintree, in 2 Edward I, the jurors say that “in uno campo sunt xxxiiii acre terre arabilis et in alio campo xxx acre et in tertio campo xxvi.”’? Thus in one way or another we get glimpses of considerable tripartite division of the demesne in fourteenth- century Shropshire.* Always more relevant to the study of field systems than the items about the demesne is information about tenants’ holdings. Fortunately there are four or five descriptions of early Shropshire virgates or parts thereof. One is contained in an account of the land at Poynton from which Shrewsbury abbey in 13 Henry IV claimed tithes. Most of it was demesne, which lay in furlongs or ‘“ bruches” pretty equally divided between Tunstall field, Middle field, and Mulle field. But there is this further speci- fication: — ‘“‘Ttem de uno mesuagio et medietate unius virgate terre quam Willielmus Bird tenet omnes decimas in le Mullefeild Item de medietate unius virgate terre quam idem Willielmus tenet, viz. de Marlebrook furlonge ... tertiam garbam Item de tota terra dicte medietatis virgate terre quam idem Willielmus tenet iacenti in le Middlefeild omnes decimas .. . 1 Cf. p. 46, above. 2 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. I, F. 4 (14). 3 It could not always be found in the sixteenth century, however. An extent of the demesne of the home manor of the monastery of Wenlock, made when the property was taken over by the crown, runs as follows (Land Rev., M. B. 184, f. 61): — “ [159 acres in eleven closes.] The nombre of acres lyeing in the comyn fyld First the West Fyld callyd eadege fyld of arable gronde count’ 105 acres valewyd at 4 d. the acre Item the South fyld count’ 95 acres valewyd at 4 d. the acre Item a leysowe by the myle pole sown with wheat cont’ ro acres [at 6d. the acre] Item the further Standhyll lyeing in the comyn feld northward count’ 16 acres {at x d.] Item the shorte Walmore dyked and quycksett about cont’ 7 acres [at ro d.] Item the pole Dame dyked and quycksett about cont’ xii acres [at 10 d.] Item the cawscroft byndyng upon the myll cont’ iii acres [at 12 d.]. ” 4 Add. MS. 30311, f. 241. 68 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Item de medietate unius virgate terre quam idem Willielmus’ tenet in Tonstallfield et de quodam furlongo in Horsecroft Et de una landa terre vocata Longelane in Horsecroft tertiam garbam.... ”’ This description is not entirely lucid. It seems, however, to refer to a single half-virgate, since “ dicte medietatis ”’ joins the lands in Middle field with those in Mulle field. If so, the half-virgate lay in the same three fields as the demesne lands from which tithes were due, with apparently something in addition in Marle- brook furlong. Such duplication of three fields in the two descriptions goes far to stamp the township as one in which a three-field system prevailed. The Shropshire feet of fines occasionally transfer virgates or parts of them. At Darliston the third part of a virgate and four acres were described as ‘‘ vi acras versus Hethe, vi acras versus Pres, vi acras versus Sanford, et vi acras de essarto sub North- wude.”’! This enumeration wears the aspect of four fields rather than three. Yet it is noteworthy that the three names used to indicate directions are those of townships near by, and this makes it probable that the first three groups of acres may have been situated one in each of three open arable fields. Inasmuch as the fourth group of six acres formed part of an assart, it perhaps represents an early addition to the three original fields. Less irregular was the fourth part of a virgate at Romsley. It com- prised ‘‘in campo qui vocatur Sandstiele vi acras et in campo qui vocatur Eastfeld viii acras . . . et in campo qui vocatur Coldray viii acras et mesuagium quod fuit Roberti Clerenbald.” ? This is the normal virgate terrier of a three-field township, with nothing unusual except perhaps the names of the fields. In neither of these western counties, however, were the field names so direct and simple as in the midlands. They were particularly awkward at The Last. Here a half-virgate disposed its acres so that there were “‘ undecim in campo versus gravam de Lastes, septem in campo versus crucem de Lastes, et novem in campo versus Chetone.”? Such a relatively equal division of acres 1 Ped. Fin., 193-2-10, 1 John. 3 Ibid., 193-3-79, 21 Hen. III. 2 Tbid., 193-2-38, 1 John. EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 69 seems to domicile the three-field system in the northeastern part of the county. If so, this is an outpost toward Cheshire beyond which the system did not much advance. From the southeast of the county we have another important terrier, describing the sixteen acres which were part of a half-virgate at Presthope as ““ vii acras terre in Arildewelle, v acras terre in Chesterfordfeld, iv acras terre in Hinesmere.’’! The names are scarcely simple, but the division of virgate acres is after the three-field pattern. Finally, the virgate which accompanied a messuage and curti- lage in a grant at Shawbury near Shrewsbury comprised “‘ Sexdecim acras terre campestris in quolibet campo, viz., in campo versus Foret super Crokes forlonge vii acras terre et inter terram de Cherletone ... et Cressewalbroke ix acras cum particulis ad capita seilonum Et in campo versus Hadenhale vi acras similiter iacentes in Stodefolde et quatuor acras terre extendentes inter altam viam et le Middelheth et iii acras super le Middelheth et duas acras terre super Sicheforlonge Et in campo versus parvam Withiford lili acras terre ... et unam acram terre iuxta Ingriythemedewe et iil acras terre super Molkebur’ cum una forera ad capud dictarum acrarum et tres acras terre abuttantes super viam prope gardinum domini et tres acras terre abuttantes usque ad portam ... cum forera ad capud dictarum terrarum.... ” ? There could be no more straightforward declaration of a three- field system than this terrier.» Only in what has already mani- fested itself as a Shropshire peculiarity, the predilection for nam- ing fields with reference to adjoining townships, is there any variation from the norm. These illustrations must suffice. They are the best available in proof of an early extension of the midland system toward the Welsh border. 1 Ped. Fin., 193-3-16, 6 Hen. III. 2 Add. MS. 33354, f. 81. Earlier than 1254. 79 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS With this assurance that the boundary of the two- and three- field system bent westward to include Herefordshire and Shrop- shire, we may at length return to the entire area comprised within that boundary and attempt to make a discrimination. How much of this extensive territory was, during the Middle Ages, claimed by two-field and how much by three-field husbandry ? Hitherto these methods of tillage have been treated as one. A glance at Appendix IT, in which an effort has been made to col- lect early rather than late instances of the occurrence of both, will show that the list of two-field townships is not short. It is, indeed, probably longer than the three-field list, but the number of citations imports little when the finding of them is so hazard- ous. What signifies is the area over which each method of tillage was extended. As it happens, neither system always dominated large and compact stretches of territory; nearly every county within the boundary above drawn had both two- and three-field townships. Nevertheless, there were preponderances. The southwestern counties were very largely devoted to two-field tillage. Most of eastern Somerset, all the Cotswold area which stretches through Warwickshire, Oxfordshire, and Gloucester- shire, all the down lands of Berkshire, Wiltshire, and Dorset, were in the thirteenth century in two fields. Even Hampshire, Buckinghamshire, and Bedfordshire may have been at least half given over to this simpler agriculture, while such was certainly the case with Northamptonshire. Lincolnshire, apart from the fen country, was a two-field county. A slightly smaller area was characterized by the three-field system at an early time. One finds it prevalent in northeastern Hampshire, in Cambridgeshire, in Huntingdonshire, and especi- ally in the valleys of the Trent and the Yorkshire Ouse. Here it prospered, till its domain came to be the eastern midlands, the north, and the west. In northern Northamptonshire, in Leicester- shire, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, and Durham, in Staffordshire, Herefordshire, and Shropshire, it was easily supreme. Broadly speaking, the line of Watling Street forms an approximate bound- ary between the two large areas characterized respectively by the preponderance of two and three fields. Yet we must hasten to EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 71 make restrictions. The considerable expanse of Lincolnshire in the north remained alien to the three-field system; similarly, in the west, Herefordshire, Shropshire, and Staffordshire showed no two-field affiliations. The subtractions from both areas nearly balance each other and leave the midlands divided into two not unequal parts. A patent conclusion to be drawn from this localization of two- and three-field methods of tillage is that they were not expres- sions of racial or tribal predilection. Any attempt to discern in them usages peculiar to Saxons, Angles, or Danes meets at once with grave difficulties. The three-field system preponderated to the northeast of Watling Street. Yet if one should surmise that this is attributable to tribal habits of Angles or Danes, he would at once be reminded that many Lincolnshire townships (with names ending in by) had two fields as clear-cut as any situated on the Wessex downs. If, on the other hand, it be suggested that two-field usages were native to the Saxons, the early three- field townships of Hampshire and the three-field character of the Sussex coastal plain are sufficient refutation. In reality, what determined the adoption of the one or the other form of tillage was agricultural convenience, and this in turn depended largely upon the locality and the nature of the soil. For it must be remembered that between these two modes of husbandry the difference was not one of principle but one of pro- portion. Under two-field arrangements there was left fallow each year one-half of the arable, under three-field arrangements one- third. The cultivated portion, whether one-half or two-thirds, was sown in the same manner; it was divided between winter and spring grains. Walter of Henley, writing in the thirteenth century, makes this clear: ‘‘ If your lands are divided in three, one part for winter seed, the other part for spring seed, and the third part fallow, then is a ploughland nine score acres. And if your lands are divided in two, as in many places, the one half sown with winter seed and spring seed, the other half fallow, then shall a ploughland be eight score acres.” The distinction between 1 Walter of Henley’s Husbandry, together with an Anonymous Husbandry, etc. (ed. E. Lamond, 1890), p. 7. 72 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS two-field and three-field modes of tillage reduces, in short, to the utilization of an additional one-sixth of the arable each year. The resort to fallowing, the equitable apportionment of strips to fields, the pasturage arrangements — all the essential features of the system — remained unchanged. A divergence so slight is scarcely one which would evince tribal or racial peculiarities. It would indicate, rather, differing agricultural opportunities as interpreted by men whose fundamental ideas about agriculture were the same. ‘This consideration leads to the inquiry whether the simpler two-field tillage gave place, as civilization advanced, to the somewhat more elaborate three-field one. As there was little difference in size between the areas within which two-field and three-field husbandry prevailed in the thir- teenth century, so the extant evidence does not clearly indicate priority of one over the other in point of time. Of the situa- tion before the feet of fines begin at the end of the twelfth cen- tury we know little. Although one or two Anglo-Saxon charters seem to refer to two fields, they constitute no ground for a general- ization. Certain inferences, however, are possible in this con- nection. If we admit that a two-field arrangement was simpler than a three-field one, and discover that at a later time town- ships sometimes exchanged the former for the latter, we shall not be unready to believe that the three fields which were existent by 1200 may themselves have been the outcome of a similar trans- formation. Were this the case, the original system of the English midlands should be looked upon as one of two common arable fields. For this reason the occurrence of the transformation at a later time becomes a point of importance. Two- and three-field arrangements did not, as we have just seen, correspond with tribal usages, but simply with agricultural opportunity. Hence a change from one to the other was a matter of opportunism. As demands upon the soil increased, and as it was observed that the three-field system brought under tillage one-sixth more of the arable each year than did the two- field system, the question must have arisen whether it would pay to change a township’s arable fields from two to three. It might, of course, have been argued that in the long run a two-field EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 73 arrangement was as remunerative as a three-field one. Though more of the soil was left fallow each year, did not the arable repay its cultivators better for the more frequent periods of rest ? Were not the crops grown on land fallowed every other year better than those produced by land fallowed only once in three years ? Such reasoning may at times have got empirical support from the marked prosperity of certain two-field townships. But the gen- eral practice told against it. The regions which adhered to two- field husbandry were, on the whole, the bleak, chalky, unfertile uplands; those, on the contrary, which were possessed of better soil and better location came to be characterized by three fields. This can only mean that, wherever natural advantages permitted, men chose the three-field system by preference. The retention of two fields was usually a tacit recognition that nature had favored the township little. To change from two-field to three-field husbandry was there- fore tantamount to making greater demands upon the arable — to taking a step forward in agricultural progress. Some desire for improvement was, of course, bound to come in time; but in a great number of two-field townships it delayed long, becoming operative only in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Sur- veys, maps, and enclosure awards instruct us as to the character of these late changes, and their teaching is summarized, so far as certain typical regions are concerned, in the two following chap- ters. In these are described certain townships, particularly in Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire, which during the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries abandoned the two-field system. What they adopted was not a three-field arrangement, but one of four fields or quarters, the outcome of a subdivision of the old fields! Before the sixteenth century, however, there is no example, within the midland area, of just this method of improvement. If changes took place, the recasting seems to have resulted in three fields. Evidence of such procedure is, therefore, what must be sought, but unfortunately it is the very kind of evidence which, in the nature of the case, must needs be scanty. To chance upon an early and a later reference to the same town- 1 Cf. pp. 88, 125 sq. 74 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS ship, one implying the existence of two fields and the other of three, is a rare piece of fortune when single references to field systems are so few. Under these circumstances the following instances seem worthy of consideration. That township fields were sometimes recast in a manner which involved much surveying and labor is evident from the case of two Northumberland manors. In the middle of the sixteenth century both considered proposals to re-allot parcels in the open — fields with a view to the greater convenience of the tenants. One rejected the suggestion because of the difficulties involved; the other undertook the change and we have record of the new arrangement.! The instance is relatively late and the system evolved was probably not one of three fields; yet the readiness to undertake a readjustment more difficult than a simple sub- division of two existing fields is noteworthy. A memorandum of the late fourteenth century from Corsham, Wiltshire, while it does not portray the transformation of two open fields into three, is yet instructive in showing the advent of three-course tillage in a two-field township.? It relates to the sowing of 103 acres of demesne arable, of which 47 were in a close and worth 6d. the acre, while 56 were in two open fields and worth 2d. the acre. The open-field acres are described as follows: — ‘“‘ Sunt etiam in le Southefeld de dominicis xv acre terre semi- nate cum frumento hoc anno in diversis particulis Item ibidem xi acre terre deputate pro ordo seminature hoc anno unde seminantur ii acre Item in le Northefeld xxx acre terre et dimidia que iacent ad warectandum hoc anno in diversis particulis.”’ This is simple two-field tillage. With the close the case is different: — ‘“‘ Est ibidem in dominicis in quodam clauso separabili xiii acre seminate cum frumento hoc anno item ibidem in eodem clauso x acre seminate cum drageto 1 History of Northumberland (10 vols., Newcastle, etc., 1893-1914), ii. 418, 368. Cf. below, pp. 207-209. 2 Rents. and Survs., Portf. 16/55. EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 75 et ibidem x acre que iacent pro warecto hoc anno item in eodem clauso in Netherforlong’ xiiii acre unde una medietas seminata cum drageto et alia medietas iacet in warecto.”’ Here the 14 acres in Netherfurlong were tilled as were the common fields, but the greater part of the close had adopted a three- Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the Township of Stow, Lincolnshire. 1804. Normanby Ox Pasture Pasture ©) ~ 2 ‘ By at =) ‘ ° 1 =) ° eS anccee=—=,, -- 1, ooo" coeneoo? G . =igkeveen! Field Sturton Map IV course rotation. One can see that such an example might some day inspire the tenants to make a similar disposition of the open fields. That at some time a change from two to three fields had taken place in certain townships is suggested by the enclosure maps of the eighteenth century. Now and then three fields are of such a character that two of them seem to have been derived from a single older one. The accompanying plan of Stow, Lincolnshire, is illustrative. If one compares it with the plan of two-field Croxton,” one cannot help suspecting that Stow too had once only two fields. Opposite to West field there had been an East 1 C. P. Recov. Ro., 49 Geo. III, Hil. 2 Cf. above, p. 26. 76 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS field, now replaced by Normanby field and Skelton field. We may even conjecture how the shifting of areas had been achieved. West field had been reduced in extent by the enclosuré of a part of it and by the setting off of a part for Normanby field; the former East field had in turn been so enlarged by additions from the common that each of the new divisions became approximately equal in area to the shrunken West field. Much the same transformation can be traced in a plan of Pad- bury, Buckinghamshire, made in 1591. Here the old fields still retained their original names, East and West; but to the north of East field, between it and the woodland, had appeared a new common arable area called Hedge field. There is no reason to think that the old fields had been reduced in size. Improve- ment of the waste rather than subtraction from them seems to have been the creative factor in the change, for the names of the new furlongs, which are recorded, often suggest portions of a common.! Although these illustrations do not take us out of the realm of conjecture, several others serve to do so by making it entirely clear that townships once having two fields came to have three. Sometimes the interval between the dates of the documents which picture the two stages of agricultural development is a long one. At Twyford, Leicestershire, a grant to the abbey of Burton Lazars, copied into a fifteenth-century cartulary, relates to two selions in the West field and one rood in the East field. The en- closure award of 1796, however, describes the fields of Twyford as three, Nether, Spinney, and Mill.2 Similarly the enclosure award for Piddington, Oxfordshire, dated 1758, has reference to three fields, the Wheat field, the Bean field, and the Fallow field; * but a charter of 6-7 Henry I conveys to St. Mary of Missenden inter alia the tithes from two acres of demesne meadow there, viz., from two acres in Westmead when the West field was sown and from two in Langdale when the East field was sown. At 1 Cf. on the accompanying map the furlongs called Pitthill, Swatthill, Shermore, Cockmore hill, and Foxholes. 2 Cf. below, Appendix II, pp. 471, 473. 3 The award is at the Shire Hall, Oxford. 4 Appendix IT, p. 488. uWepseaoyT MOpvoyT WOUTUIOD MOpreyy uo, Surppy Ysno10queyT MOpBaW-s[NOS [TV see a1OUaYS suojny \\ Suopang Buon oSuvyT fey fray T[8ysung Suopiny suojiny Avai[ng Wd Suo[NyF ayouluvg a}vo1y sJapeyy \ { ' tN 3009Spy (tT W89(109 sudy, ‘oFo][09 s(nog ITV) ‘aTTYSMIVysuryong ‘Ainqpeg jo dey vB Jo yooyG 77 78 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Piddington, as at Twyford, two township fields had at some time between the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries been replaced by three. Elsewhere it is possible to discover that the transformation took place before the sixteenth century. At Litlington, Cam- bridgeshire, in 11 Edward III, only one-half of the demesne lands were sown annually, the remainder being of no value since they lay in common. By the time of Henry VIII, however, the demesne arable, so far as it lay in the common fields, comprised 41 acres in Westwoode field, 31 in Grenedon field, and 35 in Hyn- don field.'. In three Northamptonshire townships the period of change is likewise restricted to the interval between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. At Holdenby a thirteenth-century charter enumerates 36 acres of demesne arable in small parcels, assigning them in equal measure to the East field and the West field. In 32 Henry VIII another account of the demesne there refers it to West field, Wood field, and Cargatt field. At Dray- ton a charter of the time of Henry III divides 4} acres equally between North field and South field, allotting to each five parcels. A survey of 13 Elizabeth, on the other hand, subdivides all hold- ings with proximate equality among West field, North field, and East field, the respective areas of which were 529, 573, and 414 acres.* At Evenley, finally, several thirteenth-century charters convey arable in equal amounts in East field and West field; but a terrier of Henry VIII enumerates in many parcels 47 acres, of which 17 lay in West field, 13 in South field, and 17 in East field.* While these four groups of documents pretty clearly assign the change from two-field to three-field arrangements to an undefined period between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, other charters and terriers reveal it accomplished or in process of accomplishment before the fifteenth century. At Long Lawford, Warwickshire, the open fields of the early thirteenth century were two; but a charter copied into a late fourteenth-century cartulary pictures them as three, and divides the numerous parcels of 49 * Appendix IT, pp. 457, 459. ® Ibid., pp. 477, 482. 2 Ibid., pp. 479, 482. 4 Tbid., pp. 478, 482. EARLY HISTORY OF TWO AND THREE FIELDS 79 acres among the three with rough equality... By 1 Henry IVa new third field seems to be making its appearance in an interest- ing terrier of the lands which the prior of Bicester had in the open fields of his home manor, Market End. According to the enclosure map of 1758 these fields numbered three.? In the terrier in question they were also three, but, so far as the prior’s jands were concerned, of unequal importance. His acres in the North field numbered 153, in the East field 113, and “in alio campo vocato Langefordfeld ” 60.2. To all appearances an old South field was separating into two parts, with as yet no equi- table adjustment of areas. If no positive record survives to assure us that the Bicester fields were once two, no such deficiency attaches to the evidence from Kislingbury, Northamptonshire. Here the fields were East and West, according to what is probably a thirteenth-century charter copied into a fourteenth-century cartulary; but a terrier of 14 Edward III refers to ten acres, of which 1} lay in the West field, 32 in the East field, and 43 in the South field.* As at Bicester, the small apportionment of acres to one of the three fields hints at a recent origin. The same situation is perceptible at Houghton Regis, Bedfordshire. and some of them we shall be prepared to find without indication of any whatever. Such is the case with eight townships on the summits and eastern slopes of the hills.© These were upland wooded areas, without 1 Cf. below, p. 134. 2 That for Waterstock is dated 1609. 3 Ardley, Broughton Poggs, Cornwell, Cuxham (still open in 1767), Elsfield, Emmington, Glympton, Hardwick (near Bicester), Kiddington, Newton Purcell, Rousham, Steeple Barton, Waterstock, Wood Eaton. 4 Chakenden, Goring, Ipsden, Rotherfield Greys. 5 Four other townships that extend from the Chilterns well into the plain — Shirburn, South Stoke, Watlington, and Whitchurch — had between one-fourth and one-half of their improved grounds in open field. No other Chiltern town- ship than the eight mentioned had any open field. 6 Bix, Kidmore, Nettlebed, Nuffield, Pishill, Rotherfield Peppard, Swyncombe, Stonor. 120 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS doubt directly enclosed from the forest. Five other early en- closed townships lay in the plain between the hills and the river,' a situation that probably had something to do with the absence of open fields, although two neighboring townships retained such fields until well into the nineteenth century.? In general, the Chilterns, apart from certain areas near the Thames, are to be looked upon as a forest region in which enclosure was early and probably coincident with improvement from the forest state.’ The condition of such of these townships as lay between the hills and the Thames suggests another reason for early enclosure, namely, proximity to a river. Already situations of this kind have been instanced to explain Tudor and Jacobean irregularities in field arrangements. May they not also have been responsible for a further step — the conversion to enclosed pasture of lands obviously fitted for such use? The three large streams of Oxfordshire are the Thames, the Cherwell, and the Thame. If we run through the list of early enclosed townships, we find that no fewer than nineteen of them were meadow townships lying on or near these streams.* Most are of small size, containing from 500 to 1000 acres apiece, a circumstance also conducive to prompt enclosure. There were, of course, many riverside townships which retained open arable fields; but since they were in general larger than the nineteen in question, speedy conver- sion of all their open fields to pasture would have been more difficult. We come finally to a group of townships the early enclosure of which is explained by their history. Each has long been notable as the site of a mediaeval monastery, an ancient manor-house, 1 Eye and Dunsden, Henley-on-Thames and Badgemore, Greys, Harpsden, Mapledurham. 2 Caversham and Shiplake. 3 Except in three or four instances the hamlets near Wychwood forest, unlike those of the Chilterns, had open fields and retained a part of them until the time of parliamentary enclosure. Long Coombe, whose field irregularities have already been noticed (p. 84, above), may have been enclosed early, since no enclosure award is forthcoming. 4 Langford, Radcot, Bampton, Chimney, Shifford, Lew, Yelford, Begbrook, Binsey, Marston, Cutslow, Gosford, Hampton Gay, Newnham Murren, Monge- well, Chippinghurst, Stadhampton, Albury, Tiddington. LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM I2I or at least as the residence of a county family. Im each, furthermore, there is likely to be an extensive park. Notable residences and parks were, to be sure, frequently found where there was enclosure by act of parliament. In these cases their owners had increased the old enclosed area, but had not succeeded in becoming sole proprietors within the townships in question. What a nobleman or a gentleman of consequence in the sixteenth century, however, considered most desirable as a residence was an entire township. The extensive home manors of the mon- asteries, often provided with well-built dwellings, formed ideal seats for the rising gentry who secured them. As luxurious life in the country became fashionable, each county came to have its large Tudor and Jacobean houses. In Oxfordshire there are thirty-four townships entirely given over to residential estates of this kind. Five are the sites of monastic houses — Bruern, Chilworth, Clattercote, Minster Lovell, Sandford. Seven boast Elizabethan or Jacobean mansions — Chastleton, Cornbury, Fifield, Neithrop, Water Eaton, Weston-on-Green, Yarnton. Elsewhere the houses are of a somewhat later date, but some, like Blenheim and Nuneham Courtenay, are well known. Together the thirty-four constitute 8.4 per cent of the area of the county. Often two of the reasons above given to explain enclosures earlier than 1634 applied to the same parish. Stonor is in the Chilterns and at the same time is the seat of Lord Camoys, with mansion and park; Cornbury Park, Dichley Park, and Wood- stock Park, all notable residential estates, lie within the ancient area of Wychwood forest. At Sandford-on-the-Thames were a preceptory of the Templars and the priory of Littlemore. Just below is Nuneham Park, and above on the bank of the Cherwell is the Jacobean manor-house of Water Eaton. The coincidence of park and stream is natural, since the taste of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries dictated that, if possible, a mansion be built not far from a stretch of water. 1 Besides the sites of the five monasteries and the seven Elizabethan or Jaco- bean mansions, the residential townships were and are Adwell, North Aston, Ascot, Attington, Blenheim, Chislehampton, Crowmarch Gifford, Cuddesdon, Goding- ton, Holton, Holwell, Nuneham Courtenay, Little Rollright, Shelswell, Souldern, Stonor, Thomley, Tusmore, Over Warton, Waterperry, Wheatfield, Wilcote. 122 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS The four general reasons advanced to explain enclosures in Oxfordshire — parliamentary activity, voluntary agreement, situation within a forest area or beside a river, and the existence of an ancient residential estate — have accounted for nearly all the townships within the county. For fifteen, however, no ex- planation is at hand. Most of these are small, a circumstance which in itself favored consolidation and enclosure.! In the case of the half-dozen larger ones special causes may have been at work or explanatory data may have disappeared. So far as it is explicable by two of the foregoing reasons, the achievement of early enclosure was probably a normal develop- ment. A favorable situation beside a river was itself an impetus, and voluntary agreement indicates acquiescent tenants. So far, however, as the desire to form a residential estate was responsible for enclosure, high-handed measures on the part of the lord may not have been absent. In townships where this motive came into play, whether directed toward the absorption of the entire area or affecting only a large part of it,? investigators should seek for the activity of the sixteenth-century evicting landlord — so far, indeed, as this existed.’ If we now return to those townships which in time became the object of parliamentary concern and inquire what agricultural progress they had made before their enclosure, we shall discover that, although in some regions it was negligible, in others it was 1 Warpsgrove 334 acres and Easington 295 (both in the flat fertile valley of the Thame), Stowood 593 (formerly extra-parochial, near Beckley), Hensington 603 (adjacent to the borough of Woodstock), Widford 549 (adjacent to Burford and now owned by a single proprietor), Ambrosden 600 (the residential part of a parish which once included Blackthorn and Arncot), Prescote 551 (set off from Cropready), and Nether Worton 733. The township of Studley (951 acres) has been transferred from Bucks, and Little Faringdon (1161 acres) lay in Berks, when its open fields were enclosed in 1788. There remain a half-dozen larger townships for the enclosure of which I have no explanation, —Tetsworth (near Thame) 1178 acres, Grimsbury (a rural township set off from the old parish of Banbury) 1218, Middle Aston 894, and, in the southwestern uplands, Crawley 1123 (carved from the old area of the borough of Witney), and Shilton 1596. * The existence of a considerable residential estate is responsible for the pre- ponderance of enclosures in certain townships which, since they later became the objects of parliamentary award, appear in the last two groups of Appendix IV. 3 On the subject, see Gay’s ‘‘ Midland Revolt ’’ and other papers (cf. above, Debs: ye LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 123 considerable and had manifested itself as a change of field systems. Although relatively few of the maps that accompany the awards give accurate pictures of the old fields, enough of them do so to illustrate the situation. The plans of the Chiltern townships may, for the time, be disregarded. Since the midland system did not prevail in that region, irregular fields, such as these plans show, were to be expected there. We shall return to them later." In the rest of the county, an area once entirely given over to the two- and three-field system, a diversity of field arrangement had arisen between the sixteenth century and the nineteenth. Occasionally an award or a plan shows the two simple old fields bearing the old names. The Kencott award of 1767 quotes the act to the effect that there were “ by estimation in the two open common fields, the East field and the West field, about 731 acres.” All the allotments at Hook Norton and Southrop in 1774 were in either the Northside field or the Southside field. At Arncott, in 1816, there were 533 acres in the West field and 555 in the East field. The Taynton award and plan of 1822 have, besides the common, only the two large fields, East and West. These four townships lie in the Cotswold uplands, where the two-field system was once almost universal. That only one-half of their arable was cultivated yearly after the middle of the eighteenth century may seem incredible; yet there is nothing in the awards to show that field conditions had changed since the thirteenth century. We have, indeed, found the Charlbury agreement of 1715 declaring that the owners and occupiers of lands in the open fields “‘ upon each others Lands there every other year have right of common.” We have, too, the definite statement of Richard Davis, who made the first report on Oxfordshire to the Board of Agriculture in 1794. ‘‘ Some open fields,”’ he says, “ are in the course of one crop and a fallow, others of two, and a few of three crops and a fallow. In divers uninclosed parishes the same rota- tion prevails over the whole of the open fields; but in others the more homeward or bettermost land is oftener cropped, or some- times cropped every year.” ? 1 Cf. below, Chapter IX. 2 General View of the Agriculture of the County of Oxford (London, 1794), p. 11. 124 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS For the most part, however, the two-field system seems to have disappeared in Oxfordshire before the era of parliamentary en- closure. Arthur Young, who in 1809 made for the Board of Agriculture a second and more elaborate report on agrarian conditions within the county, says nothing about it. Yet he does note the continued employment of the three-field rotation, especially on the rich lands west from Thame,' an observation that is borne out by the enclosure maps. The tithe map of Chal- grove has been reproduced,’ and the same district furnishes several three-field enclosure plans. At Thame itself there were in 1826, besides two very small fields, three large ones called Priest End, West, and Black Ditch, while the same plan shows, in the adjacent hamlet of Morton, fields alike in size named Costall, Horsenden, and Chin Hill. The accuracy of this representation is confirmed by an excellent eighteenth-century map of Morton, the strips of which lie in the same three fields, the last being called Little field.* A third township affected by the award of 1826 was Sydenham, whose three equal fields were Upper, Forty, and Lower. Near by, with only one intervening parish, are Lewknor and its hamlet Postcombe, each of them in a plan of 1815 showing three fields regularly disposed round the village.t Not five miles away is Stoke Talmage, where in 1811 the same neat arrangement was to be seen.> Berwick Prior, too, in 1815 re- tained its three fields.© Most striking perhaps of all this group is the township of Crowell, where the enclosure of the arable is the last recorded in Oxfordshire, being delayed until 1882. Yet even at that date Crowell had three open fields, which bore the unassuming old names of Upper, Middle, and Lower. - 1 Agriculture of Oxfordshire, p. 127, “On the open field near Thame [the rotation is], (1) Fallow, (2) Wheat, (3) Beans on a very fine reddish loamy sand and the crops great’’; p. 123, “On the excellent deap loams between Stoken- church and Tetsworth, (1) Fallow, (2) Wheat, (3) Beans”’; p. 13, “‘ Morton field [next Thame] a stiff loam . . . two crops and a fallow”; p. 133, ‘On the open fields at Baldons the old course, (1) Fallow, (2) Wheat, (3) Barley, oats,” etc. 2 Cf. above, p. 20. 3 Add. MS. 34551. 4 The Lewknor fields were Road, Middle, and Sherburn; those of Postcombe were Clay, Little, and North. 5 Three equal fields, Westcut, Middle, and Temple Lake. 6 They were named Marsh, Middle, and Town, and lay compactly to the north- east of the village. LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 125 At the beginning of the nineteenth century there were more three-field townships in the region round about Thame than in all the rest of Oxfordshire. Besides those mentioned, Little Mil- ton, Littlemore, Wheatley, Headington, and Islip had each sub- divided three fields into six. A little to the north were Beckley, Piddington, and Bicester Market End, also showing at the some- what earlier date when they were enclosed three fields apiece. In short, if with Oxford as a center a quadrant were to be described from Bicester (fifteen miles to the northeast) toward the east and south, it would include several townships which still, in 1800 or even in 1825, were cultivated in the three-field manner. Since this region was noticeably the last in the county to undergo enclosure, the system seems not to have been wanting in tenacity. Elsewhere in Oxfordshire few traces of the three-field system appear in the parliamentary enclosure awards, except just to the west of Oxford.!. What had happened can be read on many pages of Arthur Young’s account and verified from the enclosure plans. The change amounted to a substantial improvement in agriculture. Many of the townships had adopted a four-field system,” with a four-course rotation of crops, the latter in general being (1) fallow, (2) wheat, (3) beans, (4) barley or oats. Young’s illustrations are for the most part from the regions north and west of Oxford, although he cites Garsington, situated in the district in which we have seen the three-field rotation holding itsown. The order of the four courses varied only at Dedding- ton, where it was (1) fallow, (2) wheat, (3) barley, (4) peas or © beans. These accounts of four-course tillage are confirmed by the plans and enumerations of the enclosure awards. The region round Oxford is again the one which furnishes most illustrations. At 1 There seem to have been three important fields at Eynsham in 1802, six at Ducklington in 1839, and six at Curbridge in 1845. These parishes lay close together, ten or fifteen miles west of Oxford. 2 Davis in the quotation given above says “‘ a few ”’ townships, but the evidence about to be cited seems to show that they were numerous. 3 Young, Agriculture of Oxfordshire, pp. 111-130. So at Bampton, Hampton Poyle, Garsington, Tackley, Wood Eaton, Wendlebury, Bicester Kings End, Kid- lington, Kelmscott. 126 ENGLISH. FIELD SYSTEMS Hampton Poyle, where Young noted a four-course rotation, the award enumerates five fields — Lower, Bletchingdon, Gretting- don, Collet, Friezeman’s Well — but the last one was probably small. At Standlake, though several areas are named in the award of 1853, four fields stand out, North, South, Church, and Rickland. At Culham four fields are specified on the plan — North Middle, South Middle, Ham, and Costard — and they are shown to be relatively equal in size. Frequently the divi- sions were no longer called fields, but had come to be known as “ quarters.”’ At Hailey, in the parish of Witney, one of the four open-field areas was in 1824 called Home field, but the others were Crowley quarter, Middle quarter, and Witney quarter. At Kingham, on the western edge of the county, the plan, drawn in 1850 and sketched in the cut on the next page,! indi- cates six quarters; but the glebe terrier of 1685 shows that only four of these quarters (Ryeworth, Withcumbe, Brookside, Broad- moor) were at that time important, a fifth not being mentioned and a sixth consisting of ‘‘ every yeares Land.” ? Division by quarters is particularly characteristic of northern Oxfordshire. This region, which lies round Banbury, is possessed of a fertile soil known as “ redland ” and adapted to improved cultivation. If but one of Young’s illustrations of four-course rotation, that of Deddington, comes from here, the reason is that nearly all townships hereabouts had already been enclosed when he wrote, having been among the first in the county to apply to parliament. Their awards, however, make it clear, by references to field divisions, that four quarters were existent at the time. At Sandford near Tew the old fields, North and South, had seen appear beside them two large “ quarters” fully as important, called Down and Beacon. At Wardington in 1762 South field had become South field quarter, and ranked along with Ash, Spelham, and Meerhedge quarters. Near by, the township of Neithrop, a rural division of Banbury, had before 1760 divided its open fields into four quarters — Thoakwell, Lower, Forkham, and Greenhill. Seldom was the nomenclature of the old fields 1 The award is at the Shire Hall, Oxford. ; 2 Cf. above, p. 92." 3 Frequently the relative areas of the quarters cannot be ascertained, since in LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 127 retained, and the names applied to the quarters indicate that the formation of them was recent. In several instances the awards picture nothing so comprehen- sible as a four-fold division; instead of this, furlongs acquire Sketch of the Enclosure Map of the Township of Kingham, Gotuwell Oxfordshire. 1850. Brookside 2 Quarter Broadmoor Quarter Withcumbe Quarter e ° = D = 2 A Ryeworth Quarter Townhill Quarter Bledington Map VII prominence, and are the principal areas of which cognizance is taken.! At Sibford Ferris in 1790 the allotments lay in the early awards the plans take no account of antecedent conditions and a single large allotment sometimes extended into more than one quarter. At Cropredy, for instance, the total allotment was 1582 acres. To Sir William Boothby, Bart., were assigned, in lieu of 33% yard-lands, 961 acres in Howland quarter, Hackthorn quarter, Oxley fields and quarter. Elsewhere a quarter called Heywey frequently appears. 1 So, for example, at Drayton near Banbury, Fritwell, Spelsbury, Stonesfield, Little Tew. 128 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS furlongs named Shroudhill, Stonewall, Seven Acres, White Butt, Middle, Boyer, Townsend, Blackland, Longman’s Pool, Gore, Bush, Pitch, Church, etc., as well as in several other areas not called furlongs (e. g., Wagborough, and Long Stone Hill). When large divisions of the arable have become thus obscured, it is natural to find in some townships the number of quarters increasing, since these too may have ceased to retain agrarian significance and may have become largely topographical. At Burford in 1795 they numbered seven, at Duns Tew in 1794 eight, and at Neat Enstone in 1843 eleven.! The result of disintegra- tion of this kind was often a bewildering array of field names, in which fields, quarters, furlongs, and nondescript patches were indiscriminately mingled.2. At Kidlington in 1815 the allot- ments lay in nine fields, four furlongs, and a half-dozen miscel- laneous areas. At West Chadlington in 1814 the more important open-field areas were Lower field, Lockland quarter, Crosses Quarry quarter, Gardens quarter, Banks quarter, Blackmore Brakes quarter, Cockcroft Stone quarter, Green Benches quarter, Broadslade quarter, Ashcroft furlong, Cooper’s Ash furlong, Standalls Pit furlongs, Quarry furlong, Berry Hill, the Down, Broadslade Mill Hill, Thornwood, Great Lands, and Lone Land Hill. These areas were presumably grouped in some manner for a regular rotation of crops, but the inability to locate allotments more simply shows that large field divisions had become obsolete. Under such circumstances the grouping of the many quarters and furlongs could, for the sake of improved tillage, be easily changed by decree of the manorial court. How this was done may be illustrated from three court rolls of Great Tew, a town- ship on the edge of the redland district. The rolls date from the autumns of 1756, 1759, and 1761, nearly a decade before the 1 Hull Bush, Abigals, Sturt, Batlodge, White Hill, Windmore Hedge, Whores; Berry Field, Tuly Tree, Tomwell, Whittington, Ridges, Sands, Red Hill, Lands; Hore Stone, Great Stone, Long Lands, Lady Acre, Heythrop, Leazow Hedge, Folly, Crook of the Hedges, Long Weeding, Sheepwalk, Slate Pits. All are called quarters. 2 So at Westcot and Middle Barton, Bloxham, Church Enstone, Iffley, Mil- combe, Swinbrook, Wendlebury, Wigginton. 3 P. Vinogradoff, “An Illustration of the Continuity of the Openfield System,” Appendix, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1907, xxii, 74-82. LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 129 enclosure of the open fields of Great Tew in 1767. The first two are not clear about field divisions or the rotation of crops. The third, dated October, 1761, is specific, enumerating the open fields in eight divisions, as follows: (1) Huckerswell, (2) Between the Hedges, (3) Upper Barnwell, (4) The Lower side of Woodstock way beyond the Brook, (5) Gally Therns and the old Hill, (6) Park Hill and Great Oxenden, (7) Upper Oxenden, plank pitts, ten Lands . . . Wheat Land, Broad and picked Castors, Hollow- marsh Hill to Alepath, (8) Alepath to the Great Pool and the West field from Alepath and Woodway Ford. The first of these divisions was to be subject to an eight-course rotation beginning the following spring and observing the following succession: (1) turnips, (2) barley with grass seeds, (3) hay, (4) sheepwalk, (5) oats, (6) fallow, (7) wheat, (8) peas. The second division was to begin the same rotation a year later, the third two years later, and so on throughout the series. Eight presumably equal divi- sions of the open fields were, in short, arranged for an eight-course rotation of crops. That this arrangement was not new in 1761, but that certain of the areas mentioned were at the earlier dates sown precisely as they would have been had the specified rotation been in force, is suggested by four items in the first two rolls. Thus, in the spring of 1757 Upper Barnwell was destined for spring grain and grass seeds, while Between the Hedges was the clover quarter. Eight years later, as we have seen, the same crops were assigned to these areas. According to the second roll the Upper Oxenden group was in the spring of 1761 to be sown with barley and grass seeds, while Park Hill and Great Oxenden were in 1760 to be ‘“lay’d down with rye grass and clover ” (i. e., mowed for hay). The specifications of the third roll were to the effect that the same situations should prevail in the respective divisions eight years later. An eight-course rotation and the subdivision of the open fields into eight parts thus seem to antedate 1756, the date of the first roll, but by how much we cannot say. These arrangements amounted to the introduction of a second four-course rotation besides the one described by Arthur Young. The normal four-course succession, it will be perceived, appears 130 : ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS in (5) oats, (6) fallow, (7) wheat, (8) peas. After this came the new rotation, (1) turnips, (2) barley with seeds, (3) grass mowed, (4) grass pastured by sheep. The innovation lay in the direction of turnip and grass cultivation, half of the wheat crop having been replaced by hay, and the sheep being pastured on a sward rather than on fallow ground. Upon the fields the effect of this eight-course arrangement was the formation of small areas, no longer even formally named “ quarters.’’ Once, however, Be- tween the Hedges is referred to as the “ Clover quarter,’’ and elsewhere we hear of the ‘‘ Turnip division.”’ If the other town- ships of northern Oxfordshire which in the awards have such confusing field divisions owed them to the same cause, an eight- course rotation of crops or something similar must have been well known at the very time when parliamentary enclosure was beginning. All this, of course, implies marked improvement in open-field agriculture. Although the eight-course rotation may perhaps be looked upon as a special refinement, not widespread, there can be no doubt about the extent and importance of four-field and four-course arrangements. They probably constituted the preva- lent method of open-field cultivation in Oxfordshire in 1750. The enclosure history of the townships in which they prevailed" seems, moreover, to warrant a generalization. So long as the three-field system maintained itself intact, landlord and tenants were inclined to rest content and allow the fields to remain open. For this reason the district southeast of Oxford round about Thame, which clung to its three fields until into the nineteenth century, was the last part of the county to undergo enclosure. Where, however, four-field and eight-field husbandry had come to prevail, as they had in the north and west of the county, enclosure was favored. ‘The tenants, already in advance of the inhabitants of three-field townships, were prepared to outstrip them still more. As soon as parliamentary facilities were offered, acceptance was general; within two or three decades nearly all of the north and west became enclosed. Great Tew itself yielded in 1767, thereby revealing, it would seem, a connection between the eight-course rotation upon its much-divided fields and this LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM I3I early enclosure. Elsewhere in the north the complex fields and the four-course rotation with which we have become familiar suggest a similar explanation of the relatively early dates which characterize the enclosure awards of this region.! Having discovered that by the later eighteenth century many Oxfordshire townships of the northwest had discarded the two- field husbandry once practiced there, we are led to inquire what period is responsible for this improvement. Such a query in- volves a consideration of seventeenth-century field arrangements. Of these we have, fortunately, a contemporary account which, if not a model of style, is yet instructive. In Robert Plot’s Natural History of Oxfordshire, published in 1677, one chapter treats of the tillage employed on the various soils of the county. Before quoting this, however, it will be helpful to note the characteristics and boundaries of the soils themselves. Arthur Young’s description is best.2 According to him, the fertile “‘redland”’ of the northern townships near Banbury is one of the best soils of the midlands. It extends over the wedge- shaped area that protrudes between Warwickshire and North- amptonshire, and constitutes about one-sixth of the entire county. South of it there stretches from the Cotswolds eastward to Buckinghamshire a broad belt of less desirable soil, for the most part a limestone and known as “stonebrach.” Its southern boundary runs from Witney to Bicester, and it comprises a third of the county. South of this again is a belt of miscellaneous loams including the valleys of the Thames, the lower Cherwell, and the Thame. This constitutes another third of the county, reaching to the Chilterns on the southeast. The latter, one-sixth of the county, have a chalky soil, not ill adapted to certain crops. Following these divisions, which he too recognizes, Plot begins his description with an account of the tillage of clay soils, most numerous in the north. It will be seen that he has primarily in mind a four-course rotation of crops, precisely that described by Young one hundred and thirty years later: — “ And first of Clay, Which if kind for Wheat, as most of it is, hath its first tillage about the beginning of May; or as soon as 1 Cf. Appendix IV. 2 Agriculture of Oxfordshire, p.-3.- 132 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Barly Season is over, and is called the Fallow, which they som- times make by a casting tilth, i. e. beginning at the out sides of the Lands, and laying the Earths from the ridge at the top. After this, some short time before the second tilth, which they call stirring, which is usually performed about the latter end of June, or beginning of July, they give this Land its manure; which if Horse-dung or Sheeps-dung, or any other from the Home-stall, or from the Mixen in the Field, is brought and spread on the Land just before this second ploughing: But if it be folded (which is an excellent manure for this Land, and seldom fails sending a Crop accordingly if the Land be in tillage) they do it either in Winter before the fallow, or in Summer after it is fallowed. . . . “ After it is thus prepared, they sow it with Wheat, which is its proper grain . . . and the next year after (it being accounted advantagious in all tillage to change the grain) with Beans; and then ploughing in the bean-brush at All-Saints, the next year with Barly . . . ; and then the fourth year it lies fallow, when they give it Summer tilth again, and sow it with Winter Corn as before. But at most places where their Land is cast into three Fields, it lies fallow in course every third year, and is sown but two; the first with Wheat, if the Land be good, but if mean with Miscel- lan, and the other with Barly and Pulse promiscuously. And at some places where it lies out of their hitching, i. e. their Land for Pulse, they sow it but every second year, and there usually two Crops Wheat, and the third Barly, always being careful to lay it up by ridging against winter; Clay Lands requiring to be kept high, and to lie warm and dry, still allowing for Wheat and Bar- ly three plowings, and somtimes four, but for other grains seldom more than one... . “ As for the Chalk-lands of the Chiltern-hills . . . when de- signed for Wheat, which is but seldom, they give it the same til- lage with Clay, only laying it in four or six furrow’d Lands, and soiling it with the best mould . . . and so for common Barly and winter Vetches, with which it is much more frequently sown, these being found the more suitable grains. But if it be of that poorest sort they call white-land, nothing is so proper as ray- grass mixt with Non-such, or Melilot Trefoil. . . . LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 133 “‘ If Red-land, whereof there are some quantities in the North and West of Oxford-shire, it must have its tillage as soon in the year as possibly may be, before the clay. . . . This never re- quires a double stirring. . . . Nor is the Sheep-fold amiss either Winter or Summer. . . . This Land, like clay, bears wheat, miscellan, barly, and peas, in their order very well, and lies fallow every other year, where it falls out of their hitch- Tp.) “Tn some parts of the County they have another sort of Land they call Stone-brash, consisting of a light lean Earth and a small Rubble-stone, or else of that and sour ground mixt to- gether. . . . These Lands will also bear Wheat and Miscellan indifferently well in a kind year, but not so well as clay, sour- ground, or red-land; but they bear a fine round barly and thin skin’d, especially if they be kept in heart: They lie every other year fallow (as other Lands) except where they fall among the Peas quarter, and there after Peas they are sown with Barly, and lie but once in four years. . “‘ There is a sort of tillage they somtimes use on these Lands in the spring time, which they call streak-fallowing; the manner is, to plough one furrow and leave one, so that the Land is but half of it ploughed, each ploughed furrow lying on that which is not so: when it is stirred it is then clean ploughed, and laid so smooth, that it will come at sowing time to be as plain as before. . . “ Lastly, their sandy and gravelly light ground, has also much the same tillage for wheat and barly, as clay, etc., only they require many times but two ploughings. . . . Its most agree- able grains are, white, red, and mixt Lammas wheats, and miscel- lan, i. e. wheat and rye together, and then after a years fallow, common or rathe-ripe barly: so that it generally lies still every other year, it being unfit for hitching, i.e. Beans and Peas, though they somtimes sow it with winter Vetches.” ! This account makes it clear that in 1677 a four-course, a three- course, and a two-course rotation of crops were in use in different townships of Oxfordshire. The relation between the four-course 1 Robert Plot, Natural History of Oxfordshire (Oxford, 1677), pp. 239-244. 134 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS and two-course rotations also becomes apparent: the old two- field townships had subdivided their fields and had begun to sow one-half the former fallow field with pulse, i. e., with peas, beans, or vetches. This procedure came to be known as “ hitching ”’ the field. A township which remained in two fields practiced little or no ‘‘ hitching,”’ and even in four-field townships certain poorer lands sometimes “ fell without the hitching,” i. e., were not sown in the pulse year. The particular rotation (wheat, beans, barley, fallow), always recounted by Young, is thus ex- plained. It was the natural outcome of sowing one-half of the fallow field of a two-field township. Thus prepared by Plot’s account, we may turn to such descrip- tions of seventeenth-century fields in Oxfordshire as are available. Happily, there exists for this county, as for many others, a series of glebe terriers, a single parish often furnishing two or three such documents.!. The dates range from 1601 to 1685, with occasionally a terrier for the sixteenth century and many from the early eighteenth. Most frequently they are dated about 1634 or 1685. Since some parishes do not appear and many terriers are not easy to interpret, no complete classification for the county can be attempted. Yet even an incomplete series shows in a general way the field usages most in favor in Stuart days. In fourteen parishes, the glebe is said to have consisted of crofts.? Six of these lay in the Chiltern region, and several of the others were riverside or residential townships. Many terriers, however, picture the original two or three open fields. Seventeen townships retained the two-field system, the field names being for the most part such primitive ones as East and 1 The Oxfordshire terriers have been gathered into one volume, now in the Bodleian (Oxfordshire Archdeaconry Papers, i). A second volume contains the Berkshire series. Terriers for other counties are usually to be found in the archives of the diocese within which the county lay. 2 In Appendix II, under “‘ Oxfordshire,” the description of the glebe as it lay in two-, three-, or four-field townships is summarized. 3 Bix, Caversham, Harpsden, Ibston, Rotherfield Greys, Rotherfield Peppard (all in the Chilterns); Begbrook, Bletchingdon, Broughton (near Banbury, the glebe being enclosed c. 1700), te Meee Lillingston Lovell, Minster Lovell, Pirton, Over Worton. LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 135 West, North and South. All were in the north and west of the county. In them the abandonment of two-field agriculture seems to have occurred between the period of the terriers and that of the awards, since only Kencott is known to have retained its two fields until 1767. Three were enclosed without act of parliament, we know not how.' For several the parliamentary awards give no field detail, most of them being of early date. In three instances, however, we discover from the awards that the old two fields of the terriers had disintegrated before enclosure. At Asthall the plan of 1814 bears the names of many small fields, six at least; at Duns Tew in 1794 there were six quarters; at Tackley the references in 1773 are to furlongs and quarters only. Had the awards which contain no field detail been as specific as these three, they would probably have disclosed a similar situa- tion, and have made it quite clear that the definite abandonment of the primitive agriculture by even the least enterprising of two- field townships occurred between the middle of the seventeenth century and the middle of the eighteenth. Several glebe terriers, of course, picture the continuance of the three-field system, the point of interest here being the location of the townships. All are near Oxford, mainly to the east, but partly to the west near the Thames, the region which we have already seen characterized by three fields in the nineteenth cen- tury. It was not there that agricultural advance was to be expected. For evidence of such progress we turn to eight of the terriers dated about 1680. In them the division of the arable into four quarters, later to become so frequent, is already apparent, and they illustrate the four-field arrangements which Plot, writing in 1677, hadin mind. All are from the northern part of the county.‘ Certain other terriers for townships of the northwest have not this neat quadripartite division of the glebe, but in them also 1 Ardley, Broughton Poggs, Glympton. The enclosure of Middleton Stony has been explained from the glebe terriers themselves (see p. 117). 2 Alkerton (1777), Alvescot (1797), Steeple Aston (1767), Brize Norton (1776), Cottisford (1854), West Shutford (1766), Westwell (1778). 3 Cf. Appendix IT, pp. 493-494. 4 The case of Kingham has already been cited and illustrated (above, p. 126). 136 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS acres are apportioned in such manner as to indicate that a two- or three-field arrangement was no longer satisfactory. Where there are four quarters or fields, the names of these are curious and local, obviously of recent origin. At Somerton in 1634 pre- cise designations had not yet been adopted, it being necessary to call the fields second, third, fourth, and to locate them with reference to highways;? but at least it is clear that four-field arrangements were known to Oxfordshire early in the seventeenth century. This fact, taken with the testimony of the preceding chapter, seems to warrant the generalization that a four-field system, mak- ing its appearance in the English midlands during the sixteenth century and the early seventeenth, was employed more and more in the course of the latter century and in the early eight- eenth. This transformation marks the second important stage in the development of open-field husbandry in the midlands. The first occurred when, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, three fields were substituted for two in many regions, among others in eastern Oxfordshire. Elsewhere, as in northwestern Oxfordshire, no change then took place, the primitive two-field system remaining intact. These two-field regions, however, were those which, in this second period of development, ceased to be dormant.’ No longer did they allow one-half of the arable to lie fallow each year, but they reduced the fraction to one-fourth. Not content with this, they sometimes went farther, introducing an elaborate rotation of crops and a complicated field system in natural approach to the still more scientific principles em- 1 Steeple Barton 1685, Charlbury 1635 (cf. the enclosure of 1715, above, p. 117), Churchill 1722, Cornwell 1614, Heyford ad Pontem 1679, Kidlington 1634, Swer- ford 1614, Wood Eaton 1685. 2 So early as 1622 there is evidence in the indenture that records the partition of the open fields of Bletchingdon (Cf. above, p. 118) of four small quarters beside a much larger West field. 3 Other two-field regions underwent the same transformation as northwestern Oxfordshire. The surveys of Welford, Gloucestershire, and Owston, Lincolnshire, have already been described to illustrate four-field townships. Similarly in four fields at the time of their enclosure were, for example, East Hanney, Berkshire (C. P. Recov. Ro., 49 Geo. III, Hil.), Massingham, Lincolnshire (ibid., 45 Geo. III, Mich.), Green’s Norton, Northamptonshire (ibid., 47 Geo. III, Trin.). a e LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 137 bodied in the practice of convertible husbandry upon enclosed lands. To the adoption of these principles they speedily came as soon as parliamentary enclosure offered facilities. For among other things which the Oxfordshire evidence has illustrated is the cir- cumstance that townships which had four or more fields were the most prompt to get enclosure awards passed. By the end of the eighteenth century there was little open field left in the northwestern part of the county. Not so, however, with the region southeast of Oxford. In this stronghold of three fields enclosure was long delayed. Whether throughout midland Eng- land in general the three-field system acted similarly as a pro- tective shell for the preservation of open-field arable cannot be determined without further investigation.1 Our study of Oxfordshire, which may end here, should have served to illustrate various aspects of the decay of the two- and three-field system. As to those townships of the county whose en- closure antedated parliamentary activity, a perception that most of them were situated in forest areas or along streams, or were desirable as residential estates, will perhaps serve to explain con- siderable early enclosing activity. Further, the achievement of this step by voluntary agreement has been instanced in order to indicate the legal methods first employed. In the case of townships enclosed by act of parliament, the awards have enabled us to discover what fraction of the county still re- mained open arable field up to the time when this finally dis- appeared. The awards, too, assisted by glebe terriers, have disclosed what transformations the two- and three-field system had undergone since the days of its earlier simplicity. Only in one part of the county, it appears, and that the section given over 1 To judge from the dates of the acts for enclosure, certain of the old two-field counties — Lincolnshire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire — were prompt to avail themselves of the new facilities, while ancient three-field counties, like Bedford- shire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, long remained indifferent. But there are enough apparent exceptions to make one hesitate to generalize. Hampshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, all three-field counties, inclined early to parliamentary enclosure, while Berkshire, once two-field, showed no haste. Cf. Slater, English Peasantry, Appendix. 138 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS to three-field husbandry, had there been no change since the fourteenth century; and that part, as it happens, was the one least inclined to undertake enclosure. Elsewhere in the old two- field territory a four-field system, or one still more advanced, had arisen as a testimony to the best efforts of open-field husbandry to achieve efficient agricultural method. For those midland and southern counties in which the two- and three-field system once prevailed there is abundant evidence of its long-continued existence,! and the enclosure history of these counties did not in general differ greatly from that of Oxfordshire. In certain western counties, however, where there were pretty clearly two or three fields at an early time, similar long life was not granted. In the preceding chapter it was pointed out at length that marked irregularities in field arrangements had al- ready appeared there in the sixteenth century, and that enclosure was frequently in progress. It remains to inquire how much open field remained to be enclosed by act of parliament. The region in question comprised the forest area which ex- tended over the northern parts of Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Staffordshire, and Derbyshire. It reached westward and south- ward to include the fertile valleys of the Wye and Severn, passing thence into the low-lying stretches of Somerset. Through- out large parts of the eight counties within this region there was a tendency from the sixteenth century onward to increase the area under pasture. ‘The relatively small extent of the arable left to be affected by parliamentary activity can be roughly gauged from Slater’s list of acts and areas.2 In the valley of the Severn and in the plain of Somerset several townships procured awards, but the amount of arable enclosed by each award was seldom great. Elsewhere the acts were less numerous. As Slater records them, there were twenty-nine for Herefordshire,’ seven 1 Slater, English Peasantry, Appendix. * Ibid. They are assigned to Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Shropshire, and the counties mentioned above. 3 English Peasantry, Appendix. His Herefordshire list includes at least three acts that should have been omitted. The Wigmore petition of 1772 distinctly states that it is concerned with 600 acres of ‘‘ common wood,’’ not with 600 acres of common arable, as Slater has it. The award for Bredwardine (with Dorston), LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 139 for Shropshire, and for the northwestern parts of Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Staffordshire, and Derbyshire, eleven, six,! five, and five respectively. Since Herefordshire furnishes as many awards as any part of this region, unless it be Somerset, and since it lies well to the west, its open-field history may be relied upon to illustrate conditions and changes within the territory above defined. The contrast with Oxfordshire, whose field transformations we have been following, is marked. Though Herefordshire is the larger county of the two (537,363 vs. 483,614 acres), and not inferior in the extent of its fertile fields, its parliamentary en- closures of arable were not more than 31 in contrast with Oxford- shire’s 158. The awards recording them which are preserved and accessible correspond with sixteen of the acts listed by Slater,? and add five that he does not mention. There are, how- ever, ten petitions and acts which mention common fields but for which the subsequent awards are missing.* In no instance do these petitions or acts give areas, and how much confidence should be put in the mention of common fields in a routine formula, especially when the specification of the common wastes precedes, is uncertain. The Bredwardine petition, for example, mentions makes it clear that no arable was in question. At Byford the award allotted only a common, although it provided for the exchange of certain strips of arable. On the other hand, the list omits five townships for which we have awards concerned with the allotment of arable, viz., Wellington, Humber and Stoke Prior, Holmer, Pembridge, and Madley. 1 Kidderminster, Wolverley, Overbury, Ombersley, Alvechurch, Yardley. 2 Most of them are at the Shire Hall, Hereford, and I am indebted to J. R. Symonds, Esq., clerk of the peace, for permission to examine them. Of the thirty- four there preserved, fourteen relate to commons only. The Marden award, most important of all, is kept at the village of that name, but there is a copy at the Public Record Office. 3 Perhaps some of them are, like the Marden award, to be found in the parishes to which they refer. The townships or parishes with which they are concerned are Bodenham, Shobden, Bishopston and Mansell Lacy, Steepleton, Allesmore, Eardisland, Clehonger, Stretton Grandison, Norton Canon, and Puttenham. 4 These petitions usually recite “‘ certain Commons, Wastes, Common Fields and Commonable and Open Lands ” (Journal of the House of Commons, 31 January, 1811, Eardisland). When arable is prominent the phrase runs, “‘ several Open Fields, Meadows, and Pastures ”’ (petition for the enclosure of Tarrington, ibid., g February, 17096). 140 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Date of . Open Arable No. of | Meadow | Waste Award Township Field Enclosed | Parcels | Enclosed! Enclosed 1779 | Winforton [379]! B.S ei 1797. |Much Marcle c. 6224? oe as 304 1797 ‘| Wellington 611 noe 38 72 1799 |Tarrington 378 ] >) ? b] 23 “ _ A aga | 9 xe 18, 24, 73, 18, 40, ne ao Bei I 172 6 54 Watton: 3 63 26, 40, 30 4 ‘‘ dayesmath ” lM ha eeeatiee 4 384 60, 30 30, 23 In all these townships the open-field arable was far more exten- sive than the enclosures, but, considerable as it was in Tudor days, relatively little of it remained to be enclosed by act of parliament. Only three of the townships appear in the awards.' Of these, Marlow and Whitton are in the parish of Leintwardine, the award for which was drawn up in 1803. Init reference is made to Mar- low, where a large common of 392 acres is allotted, but only five acres of common field (in Little Marlow field). To the township of Leintwardine itself is assigned common field amounting to 197 acres. Since the hamlet of Whitton is not more than a mile distant from the village of Leintwardine, a part of the area en- closed probably came from the fields of Whitton; yet such part can have been no very large fraction of the 265 acres which were open arable field there in Tudor days. The third township of the list which appears in the awards is Lye, where in 1817 an area of 274 acres was enclosed. How much of this was arable is not made clear in the award, nor can it be determined what ratio the four monastic holdings, specified above, bore to the entire township; but, even if it be assumed that they remained un- enclosed, the total open-field arable and meadow affected by act of parliament in the seven townships of the foregoing list did not exceed 300 acres. Since in Tudor days they had contained upwards of 1200 acres, the area enclosed without parliamentary intervention was about 75 per cent of the total. This fraction may not, of course, be applicable to the county asa whole. On the other hand, there is no reason for assuming 1 Ratlinghope is in Shropshire, but there is no record of its enclosure in the acts or in the enclosure awards at Shrewsbury. 152 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS that the hilly, forested, northwestern corner in which were situ- ated the townships above noted had relatively more open field in Tudor times than had the amiable plains round Hereford. Since the Leintwardine and Lye awards are in their areas entirely representative of parliamentary enclosures in Herefordshire, the fraction which seems to reflect conditions in the northwest may not after all be inapplicable to the entire county. At least it becomes probable that a very considerable amount of arable open field, once existent, disappeared without leaving record of itself in parliamentary act or award; and one can scarcely avoid the inference that private agreement and piecemeal enclosure were operative in this process. At what period between the days of Henry VIII and those of George III the decay of the old fields was most rapid is not easily ascertainable. It cannot have been before the beginning of the seventeenth century, since the Jacobean surveys show no marked encroachments upon the arable. Surveys later than these are not to be had, though glebe terriers might throw light upon the sub- ject, as they have upon similar matters in Oxfordshire.! Until information from them or from some other source is forthcoming, the decades during which the old field system fell most rapidly into decrepitude must remain in doubt. Why piecemeal enclosure was so much more prevalent in Here- fordshire than in Oxfordshire can only be conjectured. In general during the sixteenth century the western counties appear to have been much more inclined to pasture farming than were the mid- lands. To judge from the respective values assigned to arable, meadow, and pasture in the contemporary surveys, this preference implies progress. An acre of pasture was usually worth at least half.as much again as an acre of arable, and an acre of meadow was easily worth twice as much.? Conversion of the arable, therefore, meant an increase in values and income. ‘The fact that 1 J have not been able to examine the glebe terriers for Herefordshire, and do not know to what extent they are available. 2 According to a survey of 1 Edward VI, the open-field arable at Horton, Gloucestershire, was worth from 6d. to 12d. the acre, the enclosed pasture from 1s. 6d. to 3s., and the meadow from 3s. to 5s. (Rents. and Survs., Portf. 2/46, ff. 92-104). LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 153 this advantage, patent in all the surveys, was realized only in the west suggests that conversion may for some reason have been easier there than in the midlands. Thus we are brought back to the conditions described in the preceding chapter. There were disclosed, especially in the forest areas and the river valleys of western England, deviations from the two- and three-field system. Most noticeable of these were such irregularities in field arrangements as made it uncertain whether either a two-course or a three-course rotation of crops was still practiced. If neither was in force, there can have been little reason for maintaining the integrity of the arable fields — unless, indeed, a four-course system was adopted, as happened on the lower Avon. In general in the river valleys, including those of Herefordshire, and near the moors of Somerset, irregular fields, themselves often indicative of progress, must easily have yielded to enclosure. At Frampton Cotterell in Gloucestershire they had done so completely before the days of James I. One other feature of Herefordshire fields must have been favor- able to innovations. This was their relatively small size. As has been noticed, a Herefordshire parish usually consisted of several hamlets,! each with its group of fields in which seldom so many as ten tenants had holdings of any size. Frequently the tenants numbered less than a half-dozen. Obviously the situa- tion in a township of this nature was very different from that existing in a township of Oxfordshire, where there were nearly always more than ten tenants and sometimes as many as thirty. From so large a group consent for enclosure could be got only with difficulty, whereas by the half-dozen Herefordshire tenants it might readily be conceded. If this conjecture be justifiable, the form of settlement which prevailed in the western counties had its influence upon the open-field history of the region. 1 The parish of Marden is a good illustration. Reference to the modern map shows six constituent hamlets or townships, — Marden, Wisteston, Vern, Venn, Vauld, and Fromanton. The name of the last hamlet is supplied from the Jaco- bean survey, a document which tells us that the manor of Marden comprised also the township of Sutton with its hamlet Freen (cf. above, p gs, n. 4). 154 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS At this point it will be necessary to conclude our study of the two- and three-field system. This method of tillage has been followed from Anglo-Saxon days to the latter part of the nine- teenth century. The area throughout which it prevailed has been defined as the northern and southern midlands — the terri- tory from Durham to the Channel and from the Welsh marches to the fens. In its primitive Anglo-Saxon form the system seems to have been one of two fields. As soon, to be sure, as we get full evidence from the beginning of the thirteenth century, three- field townships are apparent. The discovery, however, that two- field arrangements sometimes gave place to three-field ones has encouraged the belief that such transformation was perhaps responsible for the existence of the three-field system. The period to be credited with this first step in agricultural advance is the thirteenth century and the early fourteenth. From that time on, all the more fertile townships of the midlands, especially of the northern and western portions, were in three fields. So they remained, it seems, for about two centuries. When the curtain next rises upon midland fields as they appear in the surveys of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, another ‘transformation has begun. Although most townships still re- main in two or three fields, more complex arrangements appear here and there, especially in forest areas and in river valleys. Sometimes strips of meadow have substituted themselves for strips of arable in the otherwise normal fields. Sometimes the division of tenants’ acres among fields is incomprehensible, even though the fields are few. Sometimes the fields have become numerous and admit of no grouping which adjusts them to the traditional system. Sometimes much piecemeal enclosure has taken place and the open-field arable is visibly in a state of decay. Very often, finally, a new regular system, one of four fields, has replaced the two-field arrangement, and so has brought into annual tillage an additional quarter of the town- ship’s arable. These changes, it is obvious, were evidences at once of the decay of the old system and of an advance in agricultural technique. To study them at closer range we have given attention to the EL — LATER HISTORY OF THE MIDLAND SYSTEM 155 enclosure history of Oxfordshire and Herefordshire. The latter county has shown itself particularly notable for the extent to which piecemeal enclosure went quietly on within its borders, a procedure which seems to have been facilitated by its numerous and small fields. In Oxfordshire it was different. More than one-half of the county, to be sure, became enclosed before 1750, but the causes of this seem to have been the fertility and residential desirability of certain townships. In other townships a greater or less amount of open arable field survived, the total constituting more than one-third of the county’s area. This sur- viving open-field arable had in part undergone certain changes, particularly the substitution of four fields for two; and the extent of such transformation in Oxfordshire, indeed, suggests that it constituted the most important step in systematic agricult- ural advance made by the midland system since the fourteenth century. In conjunction with certain refinements upon itself, it was the last endeavor of open-field husbandry to till the soil in the most remunerative manner possible. In this attempt it failed, being unable to equal the advantages offered by enclosure and convertible husbandry. Thereupon set in an epoch of parliamentary enclosure which, continuing from the middle of the eighteenth century for rather more than a hundred years, left England a country substantially devoid of open arable fields. The progress of this late enclosure in Oxfordshire and Herefordshire has been followed in order to make clear what material is available for an extended study of the subject, and to emphasize the distinction between those coun- ties in which the two- and three-field system was firmly en- trenched and those in which it yielded easily to formal or informal enclosure. ‘The first group comprised the counties of the eastern, central, and southern midlands; the second included counties or parts of counties lying to the north and west in a belt of territory which stretched from Durham to Somerset. In the latter group piecemeal enclosure went on more rapidly thanit did in the former, a circumstance that constitutes the most striking differentiation within the entire two- and three-field area. Next to it in sug- gestiveness is perhaps the readiness manifested by four-field and 156 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS eight-field townships to avail themselves of the opportunity to enclose their open fields by act of parliament. Behind all the differences, however, which in course of time manifested them- selves within the two- and three-field area was the unity of origin and character that marked off the midlands from the other parts of England which are now to be considered. CHAPTER V THE CELTIC SYSTEM BEFORE examining the field arrangements of the north and the west of England, we shall do well to glance across the border to see what method of cultivation was employed by peoples of Celtic descent. Phenomena otherwise perplexing may thereby become intelligible. Of the three Celtic divisions of the British Isles, Scotland fur- nishes perhaps the most specific information as to how the soil was tilled in the eighteenth century. Among the Scottish re- porters to the Board of Agriculture in 1794 were two or three men whose habits of thought led them to go beyond the formal answer to the queries propounded and write scholarly accounts of the situation, past and present. If to their descriptions be added the briefer notes of the other reporters, the composite picture leaves little that is vague about the later history of the Celtic system in Scotland. In particular it makes clear the nature of runrig, the relation of which to the three-field system of England has never been well set forth.! A striking feature of Scottish agriculture before 1794, and one upon which the reports are practically unanimous, is that most of the arable, as well as the meadow and pasture, lay unenclosed. Near gentlemen’s seats only were enclosures to be seen. While the reporters wrote, the process of enclosing was making headway, especially in the southeast; and often matters had got to a point where a ring fence had been built about the farm, although no 1 Slater has a chapter on the subject, and quotes at length Alexander Carmi- chael’s description of the Hebrides (English Peasantry, ch. xv). He has not utilized the best information contained in the reports to the Board of Agriculture, nor is his contrast of runrig with English common fields adequate (cf. below, pp. 171-172). Seebohm had apparently not read the reports. 157 158 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS subdivisions had been made. A half-century earlier nearly all of Scotland, they say, lay open.! As a lucid description of the tillage of an open-field Scottish farm, James Anderson’s account, written with reference to Aber- deenshire, cannot be excelled: ? — “Throughout the whole district,” he writes, ‘“ the general practice that has prevailed for time immemorial is to divide the arable lands of each farm into two parts at least, Infield and Outfield. The in-field, as the name implies, is that por- tion of ground which is nearest to the farmstead; and usually consists of about one-fifth part of the whole arable ground in the farm. This is kept in perpetual tillage; and the invariable system of management was, and still is, with few exceptions, to have it divided into three equal parts to be cropped thus: First, 1 Cf. the following reports, each entitled General View of the Agriculture of the County [in question]: — Aberdeen, p. 40, ‘‘ But if by commons be understood uninclosed fields [i. e., not heath or waste] . . . then the greatest part of the county might be accounted such ’’; p. 59, “ The old corn lands near Aberdeen . . . [are] for the most part open and uninclosed.”’ Southern Perth, p. 60: “ Three-fifths at least of the whole arable land is open . . . and on some farms no fence is made except a ring fence around the whole.” Argyll and West Inverness, p. 26: ‘‘ There is but little of it [the country] inclosed, and that which is only by feal dykes; . . . the tenants, from want of sufficient inclosures, cannot protect turnip and sown grass and thereby have been discour- aged . . . to raise these articles.” Annandale (co. Dumfries), app. iv, p. xxiii: ‘“‘ There was scarce an inclosed field thirty years ago in Annandale, unless on the mains or manour place of a gentleman, and they were not at all frequent. There was no such thing at a much later period as a divided or inclosed farm, with any sort of fence, occupied by a farmer.” Dumbarton, p. 19: “ Till about thirty or forty years ago, none of the country was inclosed, except a few fields adjoining to gentlemen’s seats . . . [but] inclosing has been daily going on. One-third of the county, however, is yet open, or but roundly inclosed; that is, the farms are inclosed, but not subdivided.” Berwick, p. 45: “‘ Almost the whole or two-thirds, at least, of the lands of the lower district, are now inclosed, and a considerable part of the arable lands of the higher district.” Orkney Isles, p. 252: ‘“‘ The land is almost wholly in open fields.” Midlothian, p. 34: ‘‘ Even so late as thirty years ago, there was hardly a farm inclosed in the whole county.” 2 General View of the Agriculture of the County of Aberdeen (Edinburgh, 1794), PP- 54 sq. THE CELTIC SYSTEM | 159 Bear [barley], with all the dung made by the beasts housed on the farm laid upon it. Second and third, oats: then bear again; and so on in the same unvarying rotation. [For bear, the earth was turned over upon the stubble in the winter, a process called “ribbing.” At the end of April, after harrowing, the dung was spread, the soil lightly ploughed, and the crop sown.] For oats the ground is ploughed as soon after the grain is cut down as possible; often some parts of the ridges are ploughed the day the corn is cut down. . . ._ It is impossible to form an idea of the foulness of the crop. . . . ‘It is by no means uncommon to see one-half the ridge (usually that side which lies to the east or north) cut up for green food that year it is in bear, no grain being to be seen among it. . “That part of the farm called out-field is divided into two unequal portions. The smallest, usually about one-third part, is called folds, provincially falds; the other larger portion is de- nominated faughs. The fold ground usually consists of ten divi- sions, one of which each year is brought into tillage from grass. With this intent it is surrounded with a wall of sod the last year it is to remain in grass, which forms a temporary inclosure that is employed as a penn for confining the cattle during the night time and for two or three hours each day at noon. It thus gets a tolerably full dunging, after which it is plowed up for oats during the winter. In the same manner it is plowed successively for oats for four or five years, or as long as it will carry any crop worth reaping. It is then abandoned for five or six years, during which time it gets by degrees a sward of poor grass, when it is again subjected to the same rotation. “The faughs never receive manure of any sort; and they are cropped in exactly the same manner as the folds, with this differ- ence, that instead of being folded upon, they are broke up from grass by what they call a rib-plowing about midsummer; one part of the sward being turned by the plow upon the surface of an equal portion that is not raised, so as to be covered by the furrow. ‘This operation on grass land is called faughing, from whence the division of the farm takes its name. It is allowed to lie in this state until autumn, when it is plowed all over . 160 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS and is sown with oats in the spring. It produces a poor crop and three or four succeeding crops still poorer and poorer; till at last they are forced to abandon it by the plough after it will scarcely return the seed. It is deplorable to think that . such a barbarous system . . . should have been, from local circumstances, continued for several centuries.” From every part of Scotland come similar accounts of the division between infield and outfield. The variations in detail are slight, having reference largely to the rotation of crops and to the proportions existing between the various sorts of land. No other report makes a distinction between folds and faughs, the entire outfield being usually described as Anderson describes the folds. In East Lothian the outfield was divided into five, six, or seven brakes (instead of ten folds and ten faughs), the number depending upon the quality of the soil.1 In Ayrshire “ no dung was ever spread upon any part of it. The starved cattle kept on the farm were suffered to poach the fields from the end of Harvest till the ensuing seedtime.”’? Contrasted with the out- field was the infield, which in Dumbarton comprised about one- fourth of the farm. Sometimes the rotation of crops upon the infield extended over four years instead of three. In Ayrshire a year of ley intervened between the crop of barley and the two crops of oats. In the Carse of Gowrie and in East Lothian one-fourth of the infield ‘‘ was dunged for, pease [and] . . . the second crop was wheat, the third barley, the fourth oats.” In southern Perthshire, along with the usual rotation, a crop of peas or beans might be introduced between the oats and the barley, or barley and oats might alternate in two-course rotation.» The reporter for Annandale explains what part of a farm the system brought under annual cultivation. The quantity of infield land, he says, ‘‘ was proportioned to the number of cattle wintered and housed on the farm. An acre of land might be dunged for each five or six cattle. . . . A farm that could fold five acres of Outfield land [from which three crops of oats were then taken], and 1 East Lothian, p. 48. 3 Dumbarton, p. 44. 2 Ayr, Pp. 9. 4 Ayr, p. 9. 5 Southern Perth, p.22. The introduction of the peas or beans was deemed an improvement. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 161 could manure as many of Infield [from which one crop of barley and two crops of oats were then taken], had in all [each year] twenty-five acres of oats and five acres of bear.” ! In the Highlands the poorer. soil introduced slight modifica- tions. William Marshall’s description is in substance as follows.? The valleys were separated from the hills by a stone fence called the ‘‘ head dyke,”’ or by an imaginary line or partition answering to it and running along the brae or slope. Within the head dyke lay the more productive or greener surface, the black heathy brows of the hills being left out as ‘“‘ muir.”” The muir was an addition to the farm peculiar to the Highlands, since the portion within the head dyke comprised what was elsewhere called infield and outfield. The description of these divisions runs much as usual. Some patches, however, which were ‘“ too wet, too woody, or too stoney to be plowed, are,’’ Marshall notes, “‘ termed meadow and are kept perpetually under the scythe and sickle for a scanty supply of hay, being every year shorn to the quick and seldom, if ever, manured.”’ Other patches constituted per- manent pasture. ‘“‘ The faces of the braes, the roots of the hills, the woody or rough stoney wastes of the bottom; with a small plot near the house, termed ‘ door land’ (for baiting horses upon at meal times, teddering a cow, etc.) are kept as pasture for cattle in summer and sheep in winter, the sheep and generally the horses being kept during summer above the head dyke upon the muir lands.’ In estimating the average amount of each kind of land on a farm on the sides of Loch Tay, Marshall brings to light the principal difference between the Highland farms and the more level ones, whether of the north or of the south. The farms of Loch Tay, he states, ‘“‘ contain on a par about twenty acres of infield, fifteen acres of outfield [both tilled as elsewhere], ten acres of meadow, thirty-five acres of green pasture, with about ten acres of woody waste — in all, about ninety acres within the head dyke, and about two hundred and fifty acres of muir or hill lands.” The infield and outfield which were more or less avail- able for tillage thus constituted only a small fraction of the total 1 Annandale (co. Dumfries), app. iv, p. xxii. 2 Central Highlands of Scotland, pp. 29 sq. 162 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS area of the farm, instead of all of it, as elsewhere. Apart from the extensive but not very valuable stretches of permanent muir, pasture, and meadow, a Highland farm was like any other in Scotland. Up to this point in the description Scottish agriculture shows slight resemblance to the two- and three-field system of the Eng- lish midlands. The arable fields were, to be sure, open, and the best of them, the infield, was subject to a three-course rotation; but the three courses involved continuous cropping and knew nothing of the fallow year. With the outfield, the larger part of a Scottish farm, there was nothing in a midland township to correspond, and its alternation of five years of tillage with five years of recovery was far removed from midland methods. We come now, however, to a characteristic of Scottish agriculture which seems to ally it with the common fields of England. This feature is runrig, or rundale, the subdivision of a holding into strips or ridges intermixed with those of other holdings. The existence of ridges has already come to light in Anderson’s account, where he refers to the unproductiveness of the northern halves of the ridges of infield during the year in barley. Ridges may, of course, comport with almost any field system in which there is no cross-ploughing. They are a device for drainage, and were commended by the reporters when they were straight, not too high, and so arranged as to drain the furrows properly. In Scotland, as it happened, they had got out of hand, and, accord- ing to the reporter for East Lothian, the following shape of the ridge was universal: ‘‘ Anciently almost every ridge in this coun- try was from 18 to 22 feet broad and sometimes more; they had curves at each end, somewhat in the form of the letter S; and these ridges were always twice, and upon strong lands generally three times, gathered from the level of the ground.”! This re- port is confirmed and explained by another from Midlothian: “Tt was formerly the universal practice to form the land into high and broad ridges, commonly from 36 to 48 feet wide and elevated at least three feet higher in the middle than in the fur- rows; but this mode, which perhaps was consistent enough with 1 East Lothian, p. 51. THE CELTIC SYSTEM © 163 the heavy, cumberous six-horse ploughs then employed, is now disused since the introduction of the two-horse plough, which has of late been general in this county.” ! The long ridges were called riggs or dales, the short ones butts. The riggs contained from one-fourth to one-half of an acre each, the butts less. As in the midland system, headlands were to be found, and the acres were gathered into “ shots.” All these fea- tures were apparent in 1599, as the following enumeration of six acres, part of a husbandland at Eymouth, Berwickshire, shows: — ‘“‘One acre containing three rigs lying in that shot called the Schuilbraidis, sometimes occupied by Patrick Huldie, malt- man other three acres, sometime occupied by John Johnstone, mer- chant, of which one is in Over Bairfute, called the Heidland acre, half an acre containing three butts adjacent in the Over Welsteil, half an acre containing two rigs and a rig- end in the Blackcroft, and the other acre containing two daills in the Hilawbank another acre containing two daills and a rig lying on the west side of the said Hilawbank, sometime occupied by Robert Gotthra . and the other acre, containing three rigs of land, lying in Nather Bairfute.” ? The transition from ridges to runrig is made for us in Sir John Sinclair’s disdainful account of Caithness. “ In order to prevent any of the soil being carried to the adjoining ridge,” he writes, ‘“‘ each individual makes his own ridge as high as possible, and renders the furrow quite bare, so that it produces no crop, while the accumulated soil in the middle of the ridge is never stirred deeper than the plough.” Here at length is intermixed owner- ship or occupation; and Sir John leaves the matter in no doubt. “The greater part of the arable land in this County,” he con- tinues, ‘‘ is occupied by small farmers, who possess it in run-rig or in rig and rennal, as it is here termed, similar to the common fields of England, a system peculiarly hostile to improvement. 1 Midlothian, p. 55. 2 Hist. MSS. Commission, MSS. of Col. D. M. Home (1902), p. 214. 164 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Were there twenty tenants and as many fields, each tenant would think himself unjustly treated, unless he had a proportionate share in each.” ! Of the Orkneys, too, he writes, ‘‘ Much land that formerly lay in the state known in Scotland under the name of run-rig land has been divided, but much still remains in the same situation . . . a source of constant dispute.”* At the other end of Scotland, in Berwickshire, runrig was at least a memory. The reporter notes that “ the common fields, runrig, and rundale lands in the county were all divided previous to any attempt to improve them by inclosing.”’ Certain passing remarks of other reporters indicate more exactly the nature of the intermixed property, and at the same time point to its prevalence throughout Scotland. Most illuminating of all is the report from southern Perthshire by James Robertson, D.D. “The husbandry of the particular district under consideration,” says he, “‘ was in a most wretched condition, even so late as fifty years ago. ‘The land was always occupied in run-rigg by the different tenants on the same farm and sometimes by coter- minous heritors. The houses were in clusters for the mutual protection of the inhabitants, and the farms were universally divided into out-field and in-field except in the neighborhood of the larger towns.”’* The intermixed strips of the several tenants, we now perceive, were those of a single farm, and the method of tillage called runrig had the farm as its unit. Robert- son’s further comment makes the matter clearer. Discussing production and population, he uses this illustration: ‘“‘ No man will venture to say, that a farm of fifty acres in the hands of four tenants, who have each a horse in the plough, and their ground mixed in run-rig, will produce the quantity of subsistence, which the same farm can do in the hands of one man, who has both money and industry to cultivate the ground. With respect to 1 Northern Counties and Islands, p. 207. 2 Ipid:, 227: 3 Berwick, p. 50. 4 Southern Perth (1794), p. 22. In the second edition (General View of the Agri- culture in the County of Perth, 1799), the author adds that there were clusters of farms “even to the number in some cases of six or eight ploughs of land in one hamlet.” ———— THE CELTIC SYSTEM 165 population, where is the difference, whether the other three far- mers live on the farm or in an adjoining village ?”’! Elsewhere, writing of runrig as an obstacle to improvement, he continues: ‘“‘ But in our times nothing can be more absurd, than to see two or three, or perhaps four men, yoking their horses together in one plough and having their ridges alternately in the same field, with a bank of unploughed land between them by way of boundary. These diminutive possessions were carried to such a length, that in some parts of Scotland, beyond this county, the term a horse’s foot of land is not wholly laid aside.2 The land is like a piece of striped cloth with banks full of weeds and ridges of corn in con- stant succession from one end of a field to the other. Under such management, all these people must have concurred in one opinion with regard to the time and manner of ploughing every field, the kind of grain to be sown, and the season and weather fit for sowing, and whether they and their horses were to be em- ployed or idle. Even so late as thirty or forty years ago, this practice prevailed, not only over the greater part of the county of Perth, but with very few exceptions over all Scotland. Since that period it has been gradually going into desuetude . and must soon disappear, except where the landlord is as much of a Goth as his tenants.”’ $ In verification of the important fact that runrig applied to the arable strips of the tenants of a single farm, who were seldom more than six in number, we have the explicit statement of two other reporters. Fullarton writes of Ayr: “‘ The arable farms were generally small, because the tenants had not stock for larger occupations. A plough-gate of land, or as much as could employ four horses, allowing half of it to be ploughed, was a common sized farm. It was often runridge or mixed property; and two or three farmers usually lived in the same place, and had their different distributions of the farm in various proportions, from 10 to 40, 60, or 100 acres.’”’* Again, from Annandale, in the west, comes the comment: “ It may have been from the same ideas of 1 Southern Perth, (1794), p- 65. 2 According to the author’s note, this was “‘ the sixteenth part of a plough-gate.”’ 3 Ibid. (1799), 392. * Ayr, p. 9- 166 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS common danger, and to call attention to the general safety, that so much of the corn lands lay in run-rigg or in run-dale property; and that almost every farm was run-dale in the corn-lands, and common in the pastures among four, six, eight or sometimes more tenants.’’! Lastly, the reporter from Dumbarton notes, ‘ In some places the old system . . . is yet retained, [and] a mixed farm of little more than a hundred acres is subdivided, stuck- runways, among five or six tenants.” ? Sometimes, however, the tenants of a farm might come to number distinctly more than six or eight. Not, to be sure, the normal contributors to the plough, as the rhetorical phrase of Sir John Sinclair might suggest; * but the increase was due rather to the addition of crofters, or cottagers, so well described by Mar- shall in his account of the agriculture of the Highlands. ‘“‘ This extraordinary class of cultivators appear to have been quartered upon the tenantry after the farms were split down into their smallest size; the crofters being a species of sub-tenants on the farms to which they are respectively attached. Besides one or two ‘ cows holdings’ and the pasturage of three or four sheep, they have a few acres of infield land (but no outfield or muir), which the tenant is obliged to cultivate; and they in return per- form to him certain services, as the work of harvest and the cast- ing of peats, the tenant fetching home the crofter’s share. And still below these rank the Cotters, answering nearly to the cot- tagers of the southern provinces; except that, in the Highlands, they are attached, like the crofters, to the tenants or joint-tenants, on whose farm they reside; receiving assistance and returning for it services.” Robertson tells of similar holdings of cottagers in southern Perthshire: ‘‘ Without taking notice of small possessions, which are called pendicles, because they are small portions of the land allotted by the farmer to cottagers, labourers and servants, which in some places is still the practice; the extent of what may be called farms, where one or more ploughs are yoked, is from 30 to 4oo acres.” * Elsewhere he says, “‘ Many 1 Annandale (co. Dumfries), app. iv, p. xxii. 2 Dumbarton, p. 15. 4 Central Highlands, p. 32. 8 See above, p. 164. 5 Southern Perth, p. 57. es THE CELTIC SYSTEM 167 instances might be pointed out where all the tenants of several ploughs and a number of cottagers are huddled together in one hamlet.” 4 The phrases “ tenants of several ploughs’ and ‘‘ where one or more ploughs are yoked ”’ introduce a new complication. Thus far we have been told of the farm of one plough, whose tenants, besides crofters, were usually three or four, but might be six or eight. Their settlement, which was clearly the typical Scottish farm, was correspondingly small. If, however, the ploughs of a settlement sometimes increased, so too must the population have increased, the tenants to a plough remaining constant. For this larger aggregate of lands and tenants a special term was some- times reserved. It was called, par excellence, a township. Al- though Marshall speaks without differentiation of “ the nominal farms or petty townships,” ? Robertson makes the distinction. In outlining the obstacles to improvement he begins with “ town- ships,” and under this rubric proceeds: “‘ A number of plough- gates [‘farms’ in the first edition] in one village or several ten- ants about one plough, having their land mixed with one another is a great bar to the improvement of any country. [Although they have disappeared where cultivation has made progress] in some districts they still remain and the blame is to be attributed to the landlord. Wherever a stranger sees four or six or eight ploughs of land, possessed perhaps by double that number of tenants and perhaps a cottage or two annexed to each plough, all huddled together in one village, he instantly judges that the pro- prietor is destitute of understanding. . . . However necessary these hamlets were for the mutual aid of the inhabitants in rude ages and unsettled times . . . in the happy days in which we live such clusters of houses are no longer necessary.”’* Immediately after this the author notes as the second obstacle to improvement the existence of runrig. ‘‘ This,’’ he says, ‘‘is a species of the former evil upon a smaller scale,’ and he continues with the description, already quoted, of the two or three or four men who yoke their horses in one plough team.* 1 Southern Perth, p. 117. 3 Perth (1799), Pp- 392. 2 Central Highlands, p. 32. 4 See above, p. 165. 168 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS There were, then, settlements larger than the farm of one plough, settlements consisting of six or eight ploughs and of ‘twenty or thirty tenants and cottagers. Strictly speaking, these were the townships, although the term was doubtless applied to the farm. Indeed, there can have been no sharp line of demarca- tion between farm and township. It may have been simple enough to call a settlement of one plough-gate a farm and one of six plough-gates a township; yet which term was to be applied to a group of tenants who maintained three or four ploughs ? Sharp distinctions must have faded away, till the terms farm and township tended to become confused. One thing, however, seems clear enough: Scottish units of settlement inclined to be small. Usually they comprised not more than a half-dozen tenants tilling together less than 100 acres of land. Such in all strictness was the farm. If the number of ploughs multiplied and the tenants, apart from crofters, in- creased to a dozen, the arable might expand to 300 or 400, acres. In general, however, we shall not be wrong in calling the group of tenants’ houses a hamlet and the unit of settlement a hamlet- farm. All this is in contrast with the method of settlement usual in the English midlands. There the township often contained a thousand acres or more and the tenants numbered from twenty to one hundred.!' The ratio of one to four may not very inaccu- rately répresent the relation between Scottish and English units of settlement in point of size. In other words, the fields of the smaller Scottish hamlet-farms were perhaps only about one- fourth as large as the fields of the smaller English townships, and the same was true of the fields of larger townships in both countries. It happened, of course, that the largest Scottish township-fields were as considerable as the smallest ones of the English mid- lands. Furthermore, the ratio did not hold good for all parts of England where the midland system prevailed. In Herefordshire, for example, the townships frequently had no greater area than those of Scotland, and yet a three-field system was employed there. None the less, the contrast is for the most part valid and 1 Cf. the areas of the townships of Oxfordshire given in Appendix IV. EEE THE CELTIC SYSTEM 169 is of importance. Hamlets and small fields were peculiar to Scotland, villages and large fields to the English midlands. A single feature remains to be added to the picture of a Scottish hamlet-farm, one which appears in certain changes made by James Robertson in the second edition of his report on Perthshire. After repeating that fifty years ago all farms were occupied in runrig, and after pointing to the inconvenience of the intermixed ridges, he continues: ‘“‘ And to add to the evil, one farmer possessed this year what his neighbor did possess the former. Not only farms but in some instances estates were divided in this manner, especially where a property fell into the hands of co-heirs. The first deviation from run-rig was by dividing the farm into Kavels or Kenches, by which every field of the same quality was split down into as many lots as there were tenants in the farm . . . [and] the possessors cast lots (or Kavels in the Scottish dialect) for their particular share. (Kench signifies a larger portion of land than a ridge.) This was a real improve- ment so far as it went; every farmer had his own lot in each field, . . . reaping the benefit of his industry, which by the run-rig husbandry he could not enjoy, owing to the exchange of ridges every year. Kavels still exist in the Stormont, and in some other parts of the county in a certain degree, and almost universally in village lands. In the latter they are unavoidable; in the former they are regularly exploded, as the old leases fall.” ! In his description of Inverness-shire Robertson amplifies this statement about the annual exchanging of ridges. ‘‘ In some parts of the Highlands,” he writes, “‘ I have seen the land first- ploughed without leaving any boundaries except the furrow be- twixt the ridges; then the field was divided by putting small branches of trees into the ground to mark off every man’s portion before the field was sown. No man knew his own land till the seed was to be cast into the ground and it became impossible for him to have the same portion of land any two successive years.” ? We are at length in a position to summarize the principal characteristics of the Scottish agricultural system as it appeared 1 Perth (1799), p. 61. 2 Inverness, p. 335. 170 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS in the eighteenth century, and as it had probably existed for some time. The unit of the system was the farm, an area apparently comprising from thirty to four hundred acres, but usually less than one hundred, and requiring for its cultivation a plough of four horses, or at times more than one plough. The tenants were in general from two to four, although the number might increase to six or eight, apart from cottagers attached to the farm. Ten- ants and cottagers lived together in a cluster of houses, and their horses were joined to form the plough or ploughs. The acres of the farm were divided into infield and outfield, the former tilled year after year with the assistance of manure, the latter ploughed, part by part, for some five years and then allowed to revert to grass for at least as long a period. The arable was divided into strips, long, narrow, and sometimes serpentine. The strips of a tenant were not contiguous, but were separated one from another by the strips of other tenants, an arrangement known as runrig. Sometimes the allotment of strips did not take place until the ground was ready for the seed, and in such cases a tenant was not likely to receive the same strips in successive years. Nearly everything except the intermixture of the strips of the several tenants was different from the English two- and three- field system with which we have become familiar. The size of the farm as compared with that of the English township, the number of tenants, the infield and the outfield, the method of tillage, the annual re-allotment of strips — all differed. Slater, in getting at the distinctive feature of runrig in contrast with the English open common field, concluded that it resided in the last of these characteristics —in the annual re-allotment of strips. The persistence of such a custom, furthermore, seems to him to have facilitated enclosure, since the tenants, when they finally dissolved their plough-partnership, must have tended to allot their lands with regard to convenience, and must have assigned to each of their number, not several scattered strips, but one parcel or at least few parcels. No resort to act of parliament or to the creation of a commission would thus be necessary to effect enclosure.! 1 English Peasantry, pp. 174-175. THE CELTIC SYSTEM E71 There may be some truth in this conjecture as to the conse- quences of the long persistence of the annual redistribution of strips. Robertson’s account of the first steps taken in getting rid of runrig shows that such fluidity made easier the beginnings of a more convenient arrangement.! Yet in many places the custom of annual re-allotment cannot have persisted so long as codperative ploughing and the old intermixture. The other re- porters do not speak of it, and Robertson elsewhere is careful to limit his statement by saying that “ these ridges were im some cases frequently exchanged.”’? What generally gave the first impetus toward consolidation was not the practice of annually re-allotting strips, but the falling-in of the leases and the action of the landlord. Disregarding, however, the effect of annual re- distribution upon the beginnings of consolidation, we can scarcely look upon the usage as the most distinctive feature of Scottish runrig. Had the practice been in vogue under English two- and three-field husbandry as we have come to know it, the latter would still have been very different from the agriculture of Scotland. More characteristic of the latter were the size of the farm or township, its occupation by co-tenants or co-heirs, the manner in which it was tilled, and the distribution of the tenants’ acres throughout the arable fields. Before considering these features, however, as manifestations of a Celtic type of field system, we shall do well to examine such information touching them as comes from Wales and Ireland. Some of it is earlier and some of it more specific than the Scottish evidence. When reports from Wales were made to the Board of Agri- culture in 1794, no open-field arable lying in common was to be found in certain counties. Much waste land in the principality‘ 1 Cf. above, p. 169. 2 Inverness, p. 334- 3 Brecknock, p. 37: ‘‘ There are no common fields in this district.”’ Carmarthen, p. 21: “I do not know of any considerable extent of open common field land in the county.” Denbigh, p. 11: ‘‘ There are no common arable lands in this county.” 4 Brecknock, p. 39: “‘ One half of the district, containing on the whole 512,000 acres, is waste lands.” Cardigan, p. 29: “‘ The greater part of the low lands is pretty well inclosed; but hilly and exposed situations are mostly open.” Carmar- then, p. 20: ‘‘ About two-thirds of the county is inclosed.”’ Glamorgan, p. 42: “The waste land in this county is considerable; computed to amount to upwards 172 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS remained unimproved, sometimes not because of its poor quality but because of the inertness of the occupiers. The arable and pasture were usually described as enclosed.! Against this background of enclosures and unimproved wastes there were to be discerned, however, certain patches of common arable field. The reporter from Flintshire wrote: ‘‘ There are no common fields, or fields in run-rig in this county, as I am in- formed, except between Flint and St. Asaph and it is intended to divide and inclose them. The difference in rent between open and inclosed fields is estimated at one-third. . . . From the appearance of the fences in this county, inclosing has been very general many years ago.”’? Thus in northeastern Wales the remnants, at least, of common fields lingered, their value was estimated relative to that of enclosed land, and the writer thought it probable that existent closes were made within living memory. On the western coast another instance was noted by the reporters from Cardiganshire: “‘ The only tract like a com- mon field is an extent of very productive barley-land, reaching on the coast from Aberairon to Llanrhysted. This quarter is much intermixed and chiefly in small holdings.” The tract in question is some ten miles in length. Farther along the coast at the southwestern extremity of Wales, is St. David’s. Here again the reporter for Pembrokeshire noted and explained the existence of common fields: ‘‘ In the neighborhood of St. David’s of 120,000 acres; upon which common without stint is exercised by the occupiers in the vicinity of such waste land.”’ Carnarvon, p.15: ‘‘ A great part of Carnarvon- shire is still unenclosed.”” Denbigh, p. 11: ‘‘ There are . . . several commons of very considerable extent.” Flint, p. 2: “ Although some small portions of the waste lands have lately been divided and inclosed, yet there are many thousand acres still left in their original state, which are capable of being converted into arable and pasture lands. And although all the waste lands or commons in North Wales are denominated mountains, yet many of them are as level as a bowling green; and in this county they are, in general, not more hilly than the arable lands nor is the soil inferior in quality, were it well cultivated.” 1 Merioneth, p. 8: “ The lands in this county are mostly enclosed, the sheep walks excepted.” Montgomeryshire, p. 9: “‘ The cultivated parts of this county are mostly inclosed, and the fences are in general old, consisting of an intermixture of hawthorn, hazel, crab, etc., as in Flintshire.” 2 George Kay, Flintshire, p. 4. 3 T. Lloyd and the Rev. Mr. Turner, Cardigan, p. 29. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 173 considerable tracts of open field land are still remaining, which is chiefly owing to the possessions of the church being inter- mixed with private property; and the want of a general law to enable the bishop and clergy to divide, exchange and enclose their lands.”’! The situation and the explanation of it are re- iterated, finally, by the reporter from Glamorgan. “ The land in tillage, or appropriated to grazing,” he wrote, “is generally inclosed; open or common fields are rarely met with in South Wales. It is a mode of occupation practiced there in some few instances where ecclesiastical and private property are blended.” ” Such is the sum of the Welsh evidence contained in the reports of 1794 relative to common arable fields. Three occurrences of such fields are noted, one in the extreme northeast, the others in the south and west on or near the coast. For the phenomenon in south Wales we are told that ecclesiastical properties were answer- able; but there is nothing to indicate that such was the case in Flintshire, while on the coastal stretch of Cardiganshire the inter- mixed properties were chiefly small holdings, apparently not ecclesiastical. If, as seems probable, these ecclesiastical prop- erties were glebe lands, their scattered parcels suggest that at some earlier time all holdings may have been similarly constituted and that the glebe parcels were the last to be exchanged. About the nature of the open fields we learn little. The Cardigan stretch was ‘“ very productive barley-land,” while the district between Flint and St. Asaph was more hilly but not ill adapted to agri- culture. In contrast with this small amount of common field, the central and northwestern parts of Wales are said to have been entirely enclosed, so far as improved lands were concerned.* To discover whether the eighteenth-century patches were due to exceptional causes operative only on the borders of the princi- pality, or whether they were survivals of what had once been a 1 C. Hassal, Pembroke, p. 20. 2 J. Fox, Glamorgan, p. 41. 3 Of Carnarvonshire, in the northwest, the reporter writes (p. 15), “A great part is still uninclosed”’ ; but he does not state whether the unenclosed lands were arable or waste. Probably he refers to waste lands, since he continues: “ The old fences appear to have been finished in a very imperfect manner. They consist chiefly of dry stone walls and earthen banks.” 174 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS universal phenomenon, we turn to the surveys of Tudor and Jacobean times. As it happens, these surveys refer for the most part to the very regions which have just been noted as retaining open fields in the eighteenth century. They are concerned with large lordships in Pembrokeshire in the southwest and Denbighshire in the north- east. From other counties of Wales evidence is scanty, save for one acceptable survey from Anglesey. The testimony from the first two regions, which, to judge from the liberal sprinkling of English place-names, were less purely Welsh, may be examined first. The intermixture of the parcels of the holdings in Pembroke- shire, described in the eighteenth-century report, is confirmed by a note prefixed to the survey of the royal lordship of Haverford- west, made in 21 James I. ‘‘ Also whereas the Landes of theise Tenements doe lie devided amonge the Tennants in small par- cells lyeng intermixedlie wherebie the Tennants cannot make full profitt of theire tenements and thereby they are the lesse valu- able in the lettinge; It were verie convenient in our opinions for his highnes proffitt and for the benefitt of the Tennants that by viewe of a Jurie in everie Mannor or by some direction from your Lordship the land were viewed and by exchange made entire as neere as maie be, or sorted in such partes as the tennantes maie enclose and therebie make theire beste profhtt. And wee holde it conveynient that for all exchaunges to be made of anie peeces of land betwixte the Tennantes for conveyniencie, that the same be made in writinge and presented at the next Courte to the Stewarde to be Recorded, and that Notwithstandinge the ex- chaunge the auncient landshares and meares betwixt the peeces be preserved.” + In determining the value of a ploughland the surveyors state further that they have had “ regarde to the goodnes of ech mans holdings and whither it laye togethers or dispersed.”’? No doubt can exist, then, about the intermixture of parcels here; and, since there is talk about ancient land- 1 Land Rev., M. B. 206, f. 39. The lordship included the manors of ‘“‘ Camros, St. Issmells, Rock, Pull, and Staynton.” 2 Land Rev., M. B. 238, f. 37. THE CELTIC. SYSTEM P75 shares and meres and enclosing, it is evidence that the parcels must have been in open field or at least intermixed in large enclosures. The procedure which is recommended above by the surveyors was in 1593 well under way at Carew or New Shipping, some ten miles distant. In the list of demesne lands, for the most part closes, we hear of the following: — “One acre lying in the closure which lyeth on the north side of the myll pond; it lyeth among other lands; it was taken from the tenement that nowe John hillen holdeth and added to the demains of New Shippinge; this land is errable or pasture ground. ... Item iili acres lyinge in the foresaid close, whereof iii acres lyeth togeather in one peece and one acre at the end thereof, all arrable or pasture ground . . . ; it [the iiii acres] was sometyme belonging to the tenement that now John mertyn holdeth. }..2 “Parcells of grounde taken from tenements in newton and added to the demesne of New Shipping: fower acres arable or pasture; five of like ground; three acres of like errable. . .; two acres of like errable . . .; two acres of like errable. . .; two acres of like errable.... Memorandum, all these . . . par- cells of grounde are newly enclosed in one closure which close lieth on the north side of the said mesuage of newe shippinge. . . “ Lands taken From newton annexed to New shippyng: Item three acres situate-in the fielde or crofte on the north side of Carewe bridge sometimes belonginge to a tenement in Newton in the occupation of Henry Saunders consisting of errable or pas- ture grounde. . . ; Item two acres in the saide feelde or croft taken from the tenement wherein John woodes now dwelleth beinge errable or pasture grounde . . . ; two acres in the saide croft sometimes belonging to a tenement wherein Richard Bowen now dwelleth of like errable or pasture grounde.”’ ! Near by, at Sagestown, certain lands of the queen were thus described by the surveyors: — ‘“‘ John Benion occupieth the tenemente and xvii acres parcell of the saide xxv acres; and as to viii acres, the residue, iili of them 1 Land Rev., M. B. 260, ff. 217, 219). 176 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS lie togeathers in an open fielde on the easte side of the said town- shippe of Sageston havinge the highway that leadeth from Carewe _ to temby on the south side; two other acres lie togeathers in the same fielde neare a place called the haies, these vi acres are pulled from the forsaide tenemente and are anexed to a tenemente in the occupation of one griffith Froine; one acre and a half lyinge togeathers in the said fielde nowe holden by John Gibbe and John Thomas; One acre the residue lyeth in a fielde on the weste side of Sagiston neare the church way taken from the said tenement and anexed to the demaine lands of the castle. .. . Memorandum. insteade of the vi acres annexed to Froines tenemente . . . there is vi other acres taken from the saide froines tenement and added to the demaines of the castle they lie in the fielde on the west side of Sagiston neare the church way beinge errable or pasture... .”’! Of these parcels in New Shipping and Sagestown it will be noticed that the second group, once open, had been enclosed upon consolidation, that the last group apparently still lay in open field, while the first and third groups had lain intermixed in fields already enclosed. These two groups show that inter- mixture of tenants’ parcels in Wales does not necessarily imply that the parcels in question were in open field. Strips of more than one tenant sometimes lay within the same close. It will be noticed further that the intermixed parcels above described as newly enclosed were arable or pasture. The situation is one which could as well have arisen from the subdivision of a close of arable or pasture among several heirs as from the enclosure of an open field. If in any particular Pembrokeshire survey which has come _ down to us we try to discover the number and extent of the open fields or of the closes containing intermixed parcels, we shall find only a few of them. In the survey of St. Florence, made in 1609, much land is described as pasture or enclosed arable, while only the following field names recur more than twice, with parcels of the size indicated held in each place by different tenants: ? — 1 Land Rev., M. B. 260, f. 222. 2 Land Rev., M. B. 206, ff. 227-243. The areas are in acres. THE CELTIC SYSTEM | 177 Bloody acre, 1, 1, 24, 1 in Blackhill fields or at Blackhill, 44, 8, 4, 14, 7, 93 at Burrows, 1, 1, 2 at Ladyland, and at Langstone “in Ladyland field,” 4, 1, 3, 2, +, 13, 14, 13 at Middlehill, 5 (in open field), 43, 1, 53 in Cherrieland, 4, 4 at Honnyland, 4, 4 in the East field of Flemyngton, 9, 6. Flemington is the township to the west, and apparently had its East field. Since the other localities have not perpetuated them- selves on the ordnance map, they were probably fields rather than hamlets. The total area at St. Florence throughout which the parcels of the tenants were intermixed appears therefore to have been about seventy-five acres. A few miles to the north lay the lordship of Narberth, of which we have a survey made in 7 James I.!_ The lordship comprised, besides Narberth, the townships of Templeton and Robeston. At Templeton there was no open common arable, all holdings con- sisting of “ arable land enclosed ” and ‘‘ mountain ground.’”’ The Narberth holdings were less uniform. For the most part they were, so far as described, either closes or ‘‘ arable and pasture at Middle hill.”” Three tenants at least had “ arable not enclosed,” in amounts of from six to fourteen acres, but no further descrip- tion of these unenclosed acres is vouchsafed. Robeston was the township which, of the three, seemed most inclined to intermix the parcels of the tenants. Of this we are assured by no definite statement, but the assignment of small par- cels to the same field division can scarcely be interpreted in any other way. Particularly noteworthy is the case of four tenants, each of whom had exactly the same series of small parcels in nine localities. Four times is repeated the following list of fractional acres: in hill park close, ? in woodways close, 3 (or 2) in Hookes- meade, 2 in Blind will, 3 at Utter hoke, 4 above the haies, } at Narbert waie, } at Langstone, } at Lynacre. What had taken place was a division, among the four tenants, of plots of land 1 Land Rev., M. B. 206, ff. 118-186. 178 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS containing respectively 3, 3, 2, 3, 13, 3, I, 1, 1, acres, and a ming- ling of small parcels had been the result. Such intermixture does not imply the existence of open field, since before subdivision the areas may have been closes, and in two instances are said to have been. Indeed, ‘‘parkes”’ and closes at Robeston were numerous, a sign that the township was largely enclosed. Some further intermixture of the same sort there may have been, especially in the following localities, where acre- or fractional acre-parcels were in the occupation of different tenants (except in case of those connected by +):— Castlecroft, 1, 14 (arable), 13 (2 parcels), 3, 2, 1, 14 (2 parcels of arable), 3 at Two Acres and Little Two Acres, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2 (3 parcels), 13,4, 1 Stubby land, 3, 3, 3 in or at Woostland, 3 (arable), 3, 2, 4, +, 2 (arable) Shortlands, 2, 2, 2 upon the Hill (arable), 1 + 4, $, 23 + 14, 1, 14 (2 parcels), bithias shave ibs in the Vran (arable), 3 (3 parcels), 1 (2 parcels), 4,13, 3 (3 parcels), 1 (2 parcels). At best, the total area of the tenants’ parcels which were inter- mixed at Robeston was probably not more than eighty acres. This amount differs little from that just estimated for St. Flor- ence. Since these two Pembrokeshire townships, of all those described in the Jacobean surveys, inclined most to intermixed holdings, we may conclude that at the end of the sixteenth century the county had its arable largely enclosed. Some inter- mixed land was to be found; but at times it lay within closes, and in certain instances it pretty clearly arose from the sub- division of parcels among a group of tenants. It seems never to have predominated in a township, and probably seldom exceeded one hundred acres. From the Pembrokeshire surveys we may turn to those of Den- bighshire in the northeast, especially to some that come from a region in which the place-names are even less Welsh than those of Pembrokeshire. This is a part of the valley of the Dee, ten THE CELTIC SYSTEM 179 miles above Chester and adjacent to the English county. Wrex- ham is the largest town of the district, and its open field, as pictured in John Norden’s survey of 1620,! has been briefly de- scribed by A. N. Palmer,” who follows the history of the butts and quillets to the present day. Norden’s survey, like several others antedating it, refers to the lordship of Bromfield and Yale, a lordship so extensive as to be subdivided into seventeen manors containing 62 townships or hamlets. Excellent and detailed as is this description, it is not more so than one of some seventy years earlier preserved at the Public Record Office.’ For the most part both surveys are concerned with townships and hamlets entirely enclosed. Such, for example, in Norden’s survey are Brymbo, Esclusham, Bersham, Moreton Anglicorum, all of which are described in full, with specification of closes.! There are, however, three or four townships which in both sur- veys show certain traces of open field. These traces are very slight at Holt, being confined to three fields, each divided between two freeholders, and to a fourth in which six freeholders have parcels of arable or pasture.° They are most numerous at Wrex- ham, at Pickhill and Siswick, and at Issacoed, a division in which the principal hamlets were Sutton and Dutton. The earlier survey is henceforth quoted. At Wrexham we find, what is very rare elsewhere, the term “common field.” John Hower had, besides a messuage, garden, and pasture close of an acre, “ii acras terre arabilis iacentes in communi campo dicte ville.” David Middleton, along with four tenements and eighteen acres of pasture in seven closes, had an- other tenement, a close of pasture, and “ xii seliones terre iacentes in communibus campis villarum vaure Wryxham et Waghame continentes [with the close] viii acras terre arabilis et pasture.’ ® 1 The survey is printed from Harleian MS. 3696, in Archaeologia Cambrensis, Supplement of Original Documents (1877), vol. i, pp. cxi sq. 2 The Town, Fields, and Folk of Wrexham in the Time of James the First, Wrex- ham, etc., [1884]. 3 Land Rev., M. B. 240, the entire 210 folios. The survey as a whole is not dated, but the most recent leases and copyholds are c. 39 Henry VIII. 4 Archaeologia Cambrensis, Supplement, etc., vol. i, pp. ccii sq. 5 Land Rev., M. B. 249, ff. 8-22. 6 Ibid., f. 68. 180 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Usually the “communi” is omitted and “in campo” occurs alone.t Nine other tenants resembled the two mentioned in having a few acres or selions in the fields of Wrexham Vaur.? Since closes are sometimes included in the areas given, the total amount of open-field arable at Wrexham cannot be exactly deter- mined. It comprised about one hundred selions, varying in size from ; to $ of an acre, and it can hardly have exceeded sixty acres. The amount is not large for the middle of the six- teenth century, nor can it, of course, have increased by Norden’s time. In the survey of Pickhill and Siswick the term ‘ butts ”’ for the most part replaces “ seliones,”’ and each butt contained from a quarter-acre to a half-acre.* Of the two holdings which incline most to open arable field, one has about one-fourth of its area so described, the other about one-half. Elsewhere in the survey 1 For example, ‘‘ William ap Maddoc et Robert ap David ap Gruff ap Robert ”’ held three messuages, three closes containing eleven acres, and “‘ xiv seliones terre iacentes in campo ville predicte [Wrexham Vaur] continentes iii acras terre ”’ (Land Rev., M. B. 240, f. 720). 2 Their holdings comprised the selions of the preceding note, together with the following eight entries: — i “ii acras terre in diversis selionibus . . . et unam sellionem ii Eruas terre continentes dimidiam acram et unam rodam vii seliones terre . . . continentes per estimationem vi acras terre arabilis viii seliones terre . . . continentes iv acras terre quinque clausas et xii seliones . . . continentes ... vii acras terre... et vii seliones [no area] cum octo clausis et diversis sellionibus . . . continentibus per estimationem XxX acras terre v selliones [no area] xii selliones continentes per estimationem vi acras terre ”’ (ibid., ff. 65-74). 3 Tbid., ff. 124-130. 4 The two are as follows: — “ Jenkyn ap Jenn ap David nativus ut dicit tenet ibidem unam ceparalem clausam pasture vocatam Ibryn Istrowe alias Stonyclose continentem per estimationem iii acras pasture et unam clausam prati continentem ii acras et dimidiam ibidem ac unam aliam parcellam terre arabilis vocatam Estymarowe continentem per estimationem iiii acras pasture Et v butts iacentes in Kay Jenkyng continentes i acram terre et iii butts in dole Seswyke continentes i acram - et iiii butts iacentes in dole Seswyke . et vi butts iacentes ibidem continentes ii acras et dimidiam terre arabilis THE CELTIC SYSTEM ISI closes very largely predominate.!. As at Wrexham, the total open-field arable did not amount to more than sixty acres, and was probably less. Et ii pecias terre ceparalis continentes dimidiam acram terre iacentem iuxta brynstonoc [et] ii ceparales clausas continentes per estimationem ili acras terre ibidem et i acram et dimidiam in quadam clausa vocata Kay parva.” “ Maddoc ap Roberti ap llywelyn tenet in pychell unum tenementum et viii clausas terre in ceparali continentes xii acras pasture et arabilis et i et dimidiam acram prati vocatam gwerlozh ekeyveney et unam peciam prati continentem dimidiam acram prati iacentem in prato vocato gwerne estymavall’ et xv lez butts iacentes in dolebikill [‘ dolbykelfeld ’ is crossed out] et xi alias continentes per estimationem iii acras terre et ii pecias terre arrabilis iacentes in campo vocato ystymarowe continentes i acram terre et in le maysegwyn i peciam continentem i acram et dimidiam Et in campo vocato Oldymawre i peciam pasture continentem i acram Et in campo vocato Frythe iii butts continentes tertiam partem 1 acre Et in campo vocato maysmawre iii lez butts ibidem continentes i acram et dimidiam Et in campo vocato Skythery unam peciam continentem dimidiam acram terre arabilis Et in campo vocato Ekeyveney unam peciam continentem dimidiam acram terre arabilis Et in clauso vocato Ekeyvya unam parvam peciam terre” Land Rev., M. B. 240, ff. 128,1280). 1 The following are the only other indications of open-field arable. Except where bracketed together, the parcels are in different holdings: — “vii butts in dollgough xiv butts in campo de Keynistneth continentes iii acras iv butts continentes i acram xxiv le butts iacentes in dole gowgh et urencregog continentes iii acras terre i acram in massewell sex parcellas continentes xv butts terre in campis de Pychyll ae sellionem terre vocatam heyle iii acras terre arabilis iacentes in le butts xii butts continentes vi acras terre xviii butts continentes iii acras terre vi butts iacentes in bryng cregoch continentes dimidiam acram terre et irodam ix butts in le bullowgh ald corfi continentes per estimationem ii acras terre iii butts in dole gowgh xix parcellas et . . . butts terre arabilis continentes per estimationem jie*!* 2 2 acras terre $F = vii lez butts continentes ii acras terre”’ (ibid., ff. 124-130). Ae? fing ? is 182 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Longest of all these surveys which reveal open field is that of the division of the lordship which is called Issacoed and which contained nine hamlets. The descriptions are often non-committal, but the total, once more, did not exceed fifty acres.” 1 Land Rev., M. B. 240, ff. 147-164. 2 The following list seems to embrace all the open-field parcels, those of the same holding being bracketed together: — iiii butts in Gillowistayth continentes dimidiam acram iii acras in le grodyer ac iiii lez butts iacentes in alio Grodyer i acram in dolblythy v butts in quadam clausa vocata dollevellen ii pecie terre iacentes in Caystabell continentes i acram ii butts in cargrose continentes i rodam terre xi butts in le grodyer continentes i acram et dimidiam ii butts in alio grodyer ii butts in berthyer continentes dimidiam rodam viii butts in Errowe continentes i acram terre vii butts in le mersshegwyn xi butts in dyttonbrayne continentes per estimationem ii acras terre ix acras terre arabilis iacentes ibidem [in Ditton] in diversis parcellis dimidiam lez butts iacentem [in] panthulog continentem i acram ii lez butts continentes dimidiam acram terre in Sutton in diversis parvis peciis terre iacentes in dole Sutton circa iii acras terre i acram in le grodyer quinque diversas parcellas terre iacentes in communibus campis [of Sutton] continentes per estimationem iii acras terre iii butts vocatas tyre y Kauboth continentes dimidiam acram terre ii parcellas terre in dole Sutton continentes i acram terre i acram et i rodam per estimationem in Kayrkewle vii butts [in] iii parcellis in le goidra continentes ii acras | i acram et dimidiam prati iacentem ibidem i rodam prati iacentem in doll vha v butts in doll utha et i rodam et i butt in doll utha i parcellam in dollissa continentem dimidiam acram terre vi butts et unam parvam clausam . . . continentem i acram et dimidiam terre ii butts in Kaystabell continentes i rodam terre i butt iacentem in Kaystabellissa continentem i rodam vii butts in Kayglase continentes ii acras terre iiii butts in drowestole ussa iiii butts in grodyer dytton vii butts iacentes infra Gillough isstathelogg . ii clausas pasture et certis terris [sic] in communi campo de Sutton conti- nentes x acras terre iacentes in Sutton i acram terre [in] duobus parcellis in communibus campis ibidem [Horseley]. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 183 To the survivals of common fields in the lordship of Bromfield should be added slight traces found in the survey of the adjacent manor of Ruthin.! Although this is much concerned with mes- suages and with small holdings which are nearly always enclosed, common fields are mentioned two or three times.?__In a holding at Llammirock there was appurtenant to a house and garden “terra arabilis in communibus campis vocatis tir y cech,” the tenant paying a total rent of 6d. In Ruthin itself there was held by lease a messuage, three closes containing eleven acres, and “ terra arabilis in communi campo vocato Pantmigan continens per estimationem xii acras terra arabilis in predicto campo continens per estimatio- nem ii acras.”’ In a survey so long as this one such common fields are almost lost. Thus far only surveys from the English parts of Wales have been examined. Nearly all hamlets in which intermixed parcels have been found bear English names, and even in these the amount of common arable was surprisingly small. One might surmise that in purely Welsh surroundings no common fields whatever were known. So far as our evidence goes, however, the situation seems not to have differed from that already de- scribed. A certain amount of intermixed ownership is visible in | places where it can scarcely be attributed to English influence. Best of the Jacobean surveys of Welsh regions are those from Anglesey. Frequently these descriptions speak only of non- committal ‘ parcels,” but occasionally we discover that the parcels which constituted a holding lay scattered. Such was the case with certain of the lands of John Lewys, armiger, at Cliviock, which are described as follows: — “ii parcelle terre arabilis sparsim iacentes in quodam campo vocato Dryll y Castell . . . continentes ii acras v rodas ii parcelle terre arabilis sparsim iacentes in quodam campo vocato Glodissa . . . continentes lili acras . una parcella terre arabilis iacens in quodam campo vocato dol Gledog continens iii acras et dimidiam 1 Land Rev., M. B. 2309, ff. 125-181. 2 Tbid-; fi. 167, 175. 184 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS terra arabilis iacens in campo vocato Bryn y gwyddal continens iili acras.”’ ! In the rather long account of the lands held by lessees in the manors Hendre, Rosfaire, and Mardreff, in the Anglesey commot of Menai,’ one may find holdings which comprised, for example : — ‘‘Domum mansionalem . . . cum parvo crofto . . . et Sex parvas clausas continentes per estimationem ix acras Sex alias parcellas terre arabilis iacentes in gallt Beder conti- nentes per estimationem i acram Tres alias parcellas terre arabilis iacentes in carreg y gwydd continentes per estimationem i acram i rodam Unam aliam parcellam terre arabilis ibidem iacentem iuxta viam ad Carnarvon continentem i rodam.”’ ’ The holdings in general inclined, much as did this one, to have parcels in three or four localities, called kesw mawr, kesu bychan gallt bedr, and carreg y gwydd. It is not clear whether the first two were hamlets or fields; but carreg y gwydd is once called a “campus,” 4 and five times acres are said to lie “ sparsim ” in gallt bedr.» These two areas were thus presumably characterized by intermixed ownership, eight tenants having parcels in carreg y gwydd and seventeen in gallt bedr.6 Some intermixture of parcels in Anglesey thus seems demonstrable, although we learn nothing about the shape of the parcels, their relation one to another, or the method by which they were tilled. The character of the open field is far from clear, and the descriptions of the free- 1 Land Rev., M. B. 205, f. 135. 2 bid: iso: 2 Thid., ff. 25-30. 4 Tbid., f. 28. 5 e. g., “Sex parcelle terre arabilis iacentes sparsim in gallt beder continentes ii acras.”’ 6 The areas in acres were as follows: — carreg y gwydd, 3 (“‘acras terre arabilis iacentes sparsim ”), 1, 2, 8 (7 par- cels of arable, 3, 3, 12 (4 parcels of arable), 2% gallt bedr, 3 (x parcel), 3 (6 parcels of arable), 2 (3 parcels of arable “ spar- sim”), 2 (5 parcels of arable), 1 (6 parcels of arable “ sparsim’’), 1 (2 parcels of arable), + 1 (7 parcels of arable) + 1 (meadow), 1 (2 par- cels “‘ sparsim ”’), 1 (6 parcels of arable), 2 (6 parcels of arable ‘“ spar- sim ”), 4, 3, 4 (8 parcels of arable), 1 (6 parcels of arable), 2 (4 parcels of arable), 2 (6 parcels of arable “sparsim’’), 3 (5 parcels of arable “‘ sparsim ”’). THE CELTIC SYSTEM 185 holds of these manors add little to our knowledge. Since in them closes are sometimes designated as such, we may perhaps be justified in inferring that parcels not so designated were unen- closed and non-adjacent.!_ Considered in its entirety, accord- ingly, the evidence from Anglesey points to the existence there in Jacobean days of holdings which consisted to some extent at least of scattered parcels of arable lying in open fields. In other parts of Wales than those already considered traces of open field are slight. The twenty-six tenants of the manor of Eglowis Kymin in Carmarthen had in 7 James I only “ parks ”’ or closes.2 In a survey of Gower and Kilvey, Glamorganshire, made in 1665, there were many “ closes” and “ parcels,’”’ but little to indicate open field. Of doubtful significance are the “three other parcells, called fields, leying intermixt with the lands of the said George Lucas,” containing three acres.* In the six large volumes of Cartae et alia Munimenta quae ad Dominium de Glamorgancia pertinent, edited by G. L. Clark, we find many descriptions of closes, but only two or three revealing open fields. In the fief of Landbither four acres are specified, of which 1 Acertain freehold, for example, consisted of a house, a garden, and “ quatuor parcellas terre arabilis vocatis Cay pen y kevninsimul continentes . . . v acras | perticatas unam parcellam terre et pasture, unam peciam vocatam cay bach, et alter- am. . . iacentes super quandam clausam vocatam Cay y weyrglodd continentes . . . ii rodas xiv perticatas unam parcellam terre arabilis vocatam y rerw dew continentem . . . iacram unam aliam parcellam terre arabilis iacentem in quadam Clausa vocata Cay rllo continentem . . . iacram et aliam parcellam terre arabilis vocatam y dalarhir continentem . . . xxx perticatas et aliam parcellam terre arabilis iacentem in loco vocato cay y felin continen- tem . . . i rodam xxxv perticatas et clausam terre arabilis et pasture saxosam continentem . . . v acras et parcellam terre arabilis et prati vocatam bryn llin continentem in Loto) a actas unam aliam parcellam terre arabilis iacentem in quadam clausa vocata Penrhyn fadog continentem . . . ii rodas x perticatas”” (Land Rev., M. B. 205, f. 16). ? Land Rev., M. B. 258, ff. 1-17. * Archaeologia Cambrensis, Supplement of Original Documents, i. 270. 186 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS “ duae acrae iacent in cultura qui vocatur Kayraryan . et una acra iacet in cultura qui vocatur Kayrpistel et una acra iacet in cultura qui vocatur Hendref.”’ This may be open field or it may not be. Somewhat more sug- gestive of it are the 49 acres of arable which were conveyed along with one-third of a messuage in Landoghe; ! but abundant testi- mony of this sort is by no means forthcoming. Our examination of Jacobean surveys from Wales has brought to light only a relatively slight extent of open arable field in which the parcels of the tenants were intermixed. In each of the two townships of Pembrokeshire for which areas can be estimated it did not exceed one hundred acres, and it was not greater in the Denbighshire townships. In purely Welsh regions little more than the existence of common arable fields in Jacobean days can be determined. A reason for the insignificance of such fields, together with testimony to their earlier prevalence, is to be found in Owen’s description of Pembrokeshire, written in 1603. Explaining why winter corn is so little grown in that county, the author remarks: ““ One other cause was the use of gavelkinde used amonge most of these welshmen to parte all the Fathers patrymonie amonge all his sonnes, so that in proces of tyme the whole countrie was brought into smale peeces of ground and intermingled upp and downe one with another, so as in every five or sixe acres you shall have ten or twelve owners; this made the Countrie to remayne Champion, and without enclosures or hedging, and wynter Corne if it weare sowen amonge them should be grased all the winter and eaten by sheepe and other cattell, which could not be kept from the same: . . . this in my opinion was one cheefe cause 1“ Timidia acra iacet in loco qui vocatur Votlond inter terram . . . et terram . . . et caput ejus occidens extenditur usque ad feodum de Denaspowys due acre et dimidia iacent apud Langeton inter terram . . . et terram... dimidia acra iacet inter terram . . . et terram.. . dimidia acra iacet scilicet in Votlond inter terram . . . et terram.. . dimidia acra iacet in loco appellato Morewithe Stlad . . . una roda iacet in parte boreali prati quondam Alexandri (Cardiff, 1910), iii. 722. ” Cartae, etc. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 187 they restrayned sowing of wynter corne but as nowe sythence the use of gavelkinde is abolished for these threescore yeares past [by statute of 34 and 35 Henry VIII c. 26, secs. 36, 64] in many partes the grounde is brought together by purchase & exchanges and headging & enclosures much encreased, and now they fall to the tillinge of this wynter corne in greater aboundance then before.” ! - From this it is clear that parcels of holdings in the Welsh parts of Pembrokeshire had once been intermixed and unenclosed but that the abolition of transmission by gavelkind had encouraged consolidation and enclosure. The reference to gavelkind sug- gests that it was a determining principle in the Welsh field system, and at once calls to mind the part played by co-tenants in Scottish agrarian arrangements. Before following out these suggestions, however, we shall profit by attending for a little to Irish condi- tions; and we shall naturally inquire first whether Irish units of settlement were, like those of Scotland and Wales,” of the hamlet type surrounded by small arable fields. In Ireland the units of settlement are and long have been the townlands, but in seventeenth-century surveys they assume various names and are variously grouped into larger units. Since many of these units were more or less artificial, subserving pur- poses of rating or assessment, like English hides or virgates, it is always necessary to keep apart the actual from the artificial units. The size and shape of an actual Irish townland of the nineteenth century is illustrated by any section of the six-inch ordnance sur- vey map; and the areas of the eight towns which Seebohm has reproduced from county Monaghan, and which range in size from 35 to 165 acres with an average of about go acres, are entirely typical.’ Seebohm has gone farther, and identified these eight townlands by means of their names with eight fates of a survey of 1607. The tate was primarily a unit of rating, whereas the Latin term for townland was villata. Sometimes, as in the instance cited 1 George Owen, The Description of Penbrokshire, (ed. H. Owen, Cymmrodorion Record Series, 3 pts., London, 1892-1906), i. 61. * The places referred to in the survey of the lordship of Bromfield and Yale were usually hamlets, the arable fields of which were inextensive. 3 English Village Community, p. 224. 188 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS by Seebohm, villata and tate corresponded in extent; ! elsewhere they did not, more than one villata being sometimes included in a tate.2. Again, in county Tyrone, where the townland was equiva- lent to the “ balliboe ’’ and contained about sixty acres, it was itself a unit of rating. In county Fermanagh, however, it once more differed from the artificial units. Usually each of the seven baronies into which this county had been artificially divided con- tained seven and one-half ballybetages. Each ballybetage in turn contained four quarters, each quarter four tates, each tate 30 acres, ‘‘contrey measure.’”’ In consequence the barony com- prised 30 artificial quarters, or 120 tates.‘ Elsewhere we learn that the first of the baronies, Knockenyng, was six miles in length by three in breadth, “‘ wherein are 24 townes.” > The townlands in county Fermanagh therefore corresponded with none of the artificial units, although they were not far removed in size from the quarters. In this barony of Knockenyng their average area was 150 acres. In Donegal the villata was equivalent to the quarter, and, since 7? quarters are said to have contained about tooo acres,’ the townland here too comprised on the average about 125 acres. 1 Inquisitionum in Officio Rotulorum Cancellariae Hiberniae Repertorium (Rec. Com., 2 vols., 1826-29), ii, co. Monaghan, no. 2 (1609): “ Tres vil’ sive precincte terre vocate ballibetaghes . . . que . . . continent quasdam minores parcellas, villatas sive particulas terre vocate tates, viz. Ballileggichory continet 1 tate vocatam Ballileggichory, i tate vocatam Mullaghbracke ” [etc.; sixteen tates are named]. 2 Ibid., no. 4 (1619): “‘ Jacobus O’Donelly nuper abbas nuper monasteri sanc- torum Petri et Pauli de Ardmagh ac conventus ... seisati fuerunt ... de separalibus villis, villatis sive hamlettis et terris vocatis Mullaghegny, Reagh, Aghnelyny, Edenaguin et Broaghduff, cum suis pertinentibus continentibus i tate . . . acdevillis, villatis sive hamlettis ac terris vocatis Knocknecarny et Urny, cum suis pertinentibus continentibus i tate.” 3 Ibid., Tyrone, no. 5 (1628): “‘ King James did grant unto James Claphame . all the lands in the severall townes, etc. following, i. e., Cloghogall being 1 towne or balliboe of land, Creighduffe being 1 towne-land,” etc. These townlands consisted of three sessiaghs each. The uniformity of the subdivision and of the sixty-acre area (ibid., 1661, no. 19) are what suggest that the ‘owne is here a unit of rating rather than one of settlement. 4 Tbid., pp. xxxiii—xl. 5 Ibid., p. xviii. 6 Ibid., Donegal, no. 9 (1620). THE CELTIC SYSTEM 189 In a survey of 32 Henry VIII we are told the areas of the town- lands, and learn in addition how many peasant households each contained. Two descriptions run as follows: — “‘ Villata de Balnestragh. William Dyxson tenet scitum man- erli vocati Balnestragh super quod edificantur duo castra . terra dominica continet lx acras terre arabilis et 1 acram prati iacentes in villata de Balnestragh. . “ Et [dicunt] quod sunt infra eandem villatam vii messuagia cxv acre ili rode terre arabilis x acre communis pasture ac ii acre more in occupatione Donaldi O’Daylye, Donaldi Holloghan et aliorum. . . . Et sunt ili cottagia. . “Et [dicunt] quod sunt in Villata de Ballerayne vi messuagia CXXxlii acre terre arabilis xx acre communis pasture et xx acre more quas Mauricius O’Nayry, clericus, Ricardus O’Morrye et alii tenentes ibidem occupant... . Et sunt x cotagia....”} From these instances we may conclude that Irish units of settlement were in size much like Scottish townships. Their areas, averaging from one hundred to two hundred acres, were perhaps a little greater and their tenants may have been a little more numerous. From the point of view of the English midlands, however, both forms of settlement coalesced into what may be called the Celtic type. Instead of the large village we find the hamlet; instead of extensive arable fields, the restricted areas of the farm, the townland, or the petty township. Wherever in England hamlets and small townships appear as the prevailing type of settlement, Celtic influence is to be suspected. Within the three-field area we have already seen such, notably in the border counties, Herefordshire and Shropshire. If, however, Celtic influence determined the form of settlement and the size of the townships there, it did not prevent the superposition of a three-field system upon the arable. Since such a system was not Celtic, a further effort should be made to determine what was its Celtic correspondent. We have seen that a salient feature of the ancient agriculture of Scotland and Wales was the intermixture of the parcels of the tenants. Known in Scotland as runrig or rundale, this feature 1 Rents. and Survs., Ro. 934. 190 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS was there to be seen at the end of the eighteenth century in farms or townships which had not been improved. Although in Wales it was far less usual in the eighteenth century, or even at the end of the sixteenth, traces of it have been discerned at both periods. An item from the early seventeenth-century survey of Robeston in southwestern Wales has disclosed how rundale might arise, nine parcels of land there having been divided among four tenants, with resultant intermixture; and a contemporary Sketch of a Townland in Donegal, Ireland, showing the Holdings of three Tenants. 1845, Mar XI account of Pembrokeshire relates that such subdivision and inter- mixture were still more prevalent at an earlier time, attributing the phenomenon to the custom of transmitting land by gavelkind. From Scotland we learn that Scottish runrig was characteristic of farms held by co-tenants and of lands held by co-heirs. The reporters imply that it was an ancient custom, and excuse it as a concomitant in earlier days of the grouping of peasants in villages for purposes of defence. Since historical explanations were with them only remarks by the way, a further examination — of the occasions which gave rise to runrig and of the antiquity of the phenomenon is desirable. THE CELTIC SYSTEM . IQI Perhaps the most pertinent testimony on these points comes neither from Scotland nor from Wales, but from their more purely Celtic neighbor, Ireland. This evidence, too, is of a more recent date than that hitherto cited. It is embodied in the report of the so-called Devon Commission, made to parliament in the middle of the nineteenth century.!. From this report came (apparently at second hand) the plan which Seebohm used to illustrate the intermixed strips of the tenants of an Irish townland.? The plan itself, which is herewith once more reproduced, is instructive, but the accompanying explanation, which Seebohm omits, is still more so. It runs as follows: — ‘Fig. i shows the condition to which subdivision of holdings has brought a neglected townland in Donegal, containing 205 statute acres. The whole was occupied in one farm two genera- tions ago; it then became divided into two farms, and those two have been since subdivided into twenty-nine holdings, scattered into 422 different lots. The average arable quantity of each hold- ing is four acres, held in fourteen different parts of the townland; the average quantity of pasture per farm is three acres, held in lots in common. The largest portion of arable held by any one man is under eight acres; the smallest quantity of arable in any one farm is about two roods. The pasture being held in common cannot be improved... . They had been in the habit of sub- dividing their lands, not into two, when a division was contem- plated, but into as many times two as there were qualities of land in the gross quantity to be divided. They would not hear of an equivalent of two bad acres being set against one good one, in order to maintain union and compactness. Every quality must be cut in two, whatever its size, or whatever its position. Each must have his half perches, although they be ever so distant from his half acres. And this tendency is attributable to the conviction of these poor ignorant people, that each morsel of their neglected land is at present in the most productive state to which it can be brought.” 3 1 Evidence . . . [on] the State of the Law and Practice in respect to the Occupa- tion of Land in Ireland, 4 vols. (Parl. Papers, 1845, vols. xix—xxii). 2 English Village Community, p. 228. 3 Parl. Papers, 1845, xix, app., p. 59. 192 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS The most surprising thing in this account is perhaps not the excessive subdivision which resulted in 205 acres being cut up into 422 lots held intermixedly by twenty-nine tenants; it is rather that a compact farm had been thus transformed within two generations — a fact which Seebohm neglected to note. The cause of the subdivision and the manner in which it had been made are indicated in the quotation. Co-tenancy had been re- sponsible. This custom demanded that the heirs of a tenant receive equal parcels of each quality of his land, no matter how widely distributed the plots of the same quality may have been. The tangle of strips and plats shown on the map was the result. Such an account corresponds with what has already been noted relative to a Scottish farm or townland. There, too, co-heirs were often the tenants who held their lands in runrig. In both countries other tenants, not heirs of the original holder, must at times, through purchase or otherwise, have substituted them- selves for some of the co-heirs. But the principle is plain and the rapidity with which results could be achieved is startling. With such a tradition at work, both countries must necessarily at one time or another have had many a townland as much subdivided as were the open fields of the English midlands. Testimony to the prevalence of runrig in Scotland before the middle of the eighteenth century has been given. Something more should be added regarding Ireland. When the Devon Commission made its report in 1845 runrig had pretty nearly disappeared in certain parts of the island. The following quotations are respectively from Antrim, Down, and Londonderry, three counties of Ulster: — ‘“‘ Are there many farms near you held in rundale, or in com- mon?” ‘Very few... . There are none on the Ballycastle estate... . I do not know more than a dozen cases in my range. I consider it a very objectionable system.” “‘ Are there any persons holding in common or in joint ten- ancy?” “Very few. Ido not know any at present. I hada property some time ago under me which was in rundale.”’ “In what state were the tenants?” ‘‘ Very bad indeed; but I divided it all.” THE CELTIC SYSTEM | 193 “There are no farms held in rundale for some years past; I remember when it was the practice. [Yet] farms are a good deal subdivided among the members of a family which is a bad sys- tems 7:4 In Roscommon there was more of rundale, and again we are told of the custom which produced it: — “ Are there many farms held in common or in joint tenancy ? ”’ “Yes, a good many.” ‘ What is the condition of the people occupying them?” “ Principally very poor persons. There are none others in my neighborhood. . . ._ [The system] is decreasing . . . it is very much the habit of the lower orders to divide their holdings, and give to their sons and sons-in-law a portion of their holdings, which leaves the holding little enough to support them and pay their rent... .” ? The best account of the getting rid of rundale was given by Marcus Keane, Esq., who was land agent for about 60,000 acres in or near county Clare. This large area was owned by twelve proprietors (principally by three), but was occupied by a great number of tenants. Few holdings were larger than fifteen acres. Since Keane had occasion to divide ‘‘many thousand acres,’’ there must have been relatively more of rundale in county Clare than in the northeast of the island. His description of the situation and of his own activity is as follows: — “The farms were hitherto (and are up to this day, where the changes have not been made) held by tenants in several different divisions scattered over the district, some . . . being as far as a mile distant from other divisions. In some cases one man held so many as ten, twelve, or fourteen different divisions, and it has been my business to go through the estates and divide them out again, giving each tenant his holding in one lot of a convenient size and extending to the high road. . . ._ [At first there was opposition] but of late the people themselves wish to have the changes made. ... There was one case of a large farm of 1000 acres held among 200 tenants nearly, and they gave me much opposition. It was two years before I completely satisfied them all and satisfied myself... . And among the tenants upon 1 Parl. Papers, 1845, xix, nos. 130, 99, 131. 2 Tbid., xx, no. 430. 194 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS many thousand acres, whose farms I have so divided, I do not know more than two or three who complain.” ! Proceeding, Keane corrected the testimony of the Rev. Timothy Kelly, who had stated that on one farm nineteen or twenty houses had been levelled. Again we perceive the extreme sub- division of a small township and the process by which it had come about. ‘ The fact is, that only eleven families were turned out, and fewer than eleven houses were levelled. . . . only one [tenant] had so much as five acres; the remaining ten had [together] less than twenty acres. . . . The person who had five acres was never known as a tenant, but was the younger son of a tenant who had divided his land without permission . . . most of them were persons who had divided their holdings, or had been brought in by such persons without permission . . . the whole farm contains 185 acres of arable land besides bog, and there are left on it twenty-six tenants, making an average of less than eight acres to each; only one tenant of these has more than twelve acres of arable, and that man has not thirteen acres.” ? These descriptions of Irish farms in the nineteenth century confirm the Scottish reports of a half-century earlier and assist in explaining them. In Ireland, as in Scotland, the farm or town- land was occupied by several tenants. The arable was in rundale, the parcels of a tenant being considerably scattered and inter- mixed with those of other tenants. What is new in the Irish account is the description of the rapidity with which the sub- division could be achieved. In the Donegal townland two generations had been sufficient to transform an undivided area of 205 acres into 422 separate lots held intermixedly by twenty- nine tenants. In the last quotation a townland of 185 acres was deprived of eleven tenants because they had, not long before, become tenants through unwarranted division. The witness from Roscommon commented on the frequency with which the “lower orders”’ divided their holdings among their sons and sons-in-law. The Irish evidence thus supplements the Welsh and Scottish by accounting for the appearance of rundale. Rundale was pri- 1 Parl. Papers, 1845, xxi, no. 1063 (14-16). 2 Tbid., xxi, no. 1063 (4). THE CELTIC SYSTEM 3 195 marily due to the custom of transmitting land to co-heirs and giving to each a share in parcels of every quality. Ina brief time this practice might transform a compact farm or townland into a congeries of ill-compacted holdings, and, once transformed, a farm had little chance of regaining its earlier semblance except by the falling-in of the leases or by the action of the landlord. Since in Scotland at the end of the eighteenth century runrig was considered ancient, it becomes pertinent to inquire whether transmission of holdings to co-heirs was a custom found in Celtic countries in earlier times. The Jacobean description of Pem- brokeshire notes that its effects were at that time beginning to disappear. Hence we turn with expectation to a Welsh survey of the Tudor period which gives suggestive information. The two following descriptions of holdings, which are typical, illustrate how a transmission to several co-heirs, presumably resultant in runrig, had recently taken place at Eskirmaen.! To judge from the rents, which elsewhere in the survey are 2 d. the acre, the first holding must have contained about 35 acres, the second about 150: — “John ap griffith henry . ) howell ap henry david ap meredydd griffith Hoyd tenent certas terras et tenementa ibi- Morgan ap meredydd ap griffith lloyd + dem que nuperfue- Isabell merch griffith ap meredydd ap griffith lloyd runt henrici ap Maude merch griffith ap meredydd ap griffith lloyd griffith lloyd. Gwenllian merch griffith ap meredydd ap griffith lloyd J “ Johannes dny ap gwilym Gwalter Redd ap meredydd ap gwilym Gwalter Johannes ap Jenfi ap gwilym Gwalter tenent certas terras howell ap Jeni ap gwilym Gwalter et tenementa que Griffith ap Morgan ap gwalter nuper fuerunt Gwalter ap Morgan ap gwalter Gwalter ap Jeni Johannes ap Owen ap morgan Im.” David ap Owen ap morgan Gwalter ap Henry morgan J This Tudor survey with its holdings in the occupation of several heirs finds a prototype in another and earlier Welsh survey — a rate-book of 8 Edward III, known as the Denbigh extent. 1 Rents. and Survs., D. of Lanc., Portf. 12/4 (15-19 Hen. VII), ff. 275, 280. 196 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Although this has regard primarily to the assessment of rents, the number of persons bearing the same family name who have become responsible for the return from a particular lectwm, Gavelle, or Wele (the terms are used interchangeably) testifies to the widespread transmission of land to co-heirs. The structure of the villata' of Wigfair in the commot of Ysdulas will make this clear. The villata in question consisted of eight lecta, the first of which was divided into three smaller Jecta or gavellae, while the first of these in turn comprised three gavellae or weles, each having several tenants. If we attend to only the first of the sub- divisions in each instance, the account runs as follows: — “Villata de Wyckewere cum Hamellis de Boydroghyn et Kyl- mayl consistebat temporibus Principum ante Conquestum in octo lectis unde vi lecta fuerunt in omnibus locis predictis. . Et de hiis vi lectis [1] unum lectum fuit penitus in tenura liberorum quod vocatur Wele Lauwargh’ ap Kendelyk. [11] Secundum lectum consistit videlicet due partes in tenura liberorum et tertia pars in tenura Nativorum quod lectum vocatur Wele Morythe. [11] Tercium lectum consistit videlicet due partes in tenura liberorum et tertia pars in tenura Nativo- rum quod quidem lectum vocatur Wele Peidyth’ Mogh’. [r1v-v1] Cetera tria lecta de predictis vi lectis fuerunt in- tegre in tenura Nativorum, unde primum lectum vocatur Wele Breynt’ secundum lectum vocatur Wele Meyon et tercium vocatur Wele Bothloyn. [vi-vi] Et duo ultima lecta . . . fuerunt tantumodo in villa de Boydroghyn et consistunt penitus in tenura Nativorum, unde primum lectum vocatur Wele Anergh Guyrdyon et secundum lectum vocatur Wele Thlowthon. .. . 1 The villata of fourteenth-century Wales was a far larger unit than the Irish villata or townland of the seventeenth century, referred to above (pp. 187-189). 2 Survey of the Honour of Denbigh, 1334 (ed. P. Vinogradoff and F. Morgan, London, 1914), pp. 210-212. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 197 [1] De primo lecto [Wele Lauwargh’ ap Kendelyk] . . . fuerunt tria lecta seu tres gavelle videlicet [a] Wele Risshard ap Lauwargh’ [6] Wele Moridyk ap Law’ et [c] Wele Kandalo ap Lauwargh’. . . . [a] De Wele Risshard ap Lauwargh’ fiunt tres ga- velle videlicet [1] gavella Madok ap Risshard [2] gavella Kendalo ap Risshard et [3] gavella Ken’ ap Risshard. i} Gronou ap Madok Vaghan, Eynon Routh’ frater eius, Heilyn ap Eynon ap Risshard, Heilyn ap Gron’ ap Ey- non, Bleth’ et Ithel fratres eius et Heilyn ap Eynon Gogh’ tenent ga- vellam Madok ap Risshard integre, redd. de Tung’ inter se per annum... [8d.+12d.+6d.+ 74d.+6d]. Et faciunt cetera servicia cum aliis liberis istius commoti in communi, de quibus patebit in fine istius commoti inter communes consuetudines &c.” [ii] Seven men, of whom three are brothers of two others, hold Gavella Kendalo ap Risshard “ integre.”’ [iii] Thirteen men, of whom seven are brothers of five others and one is a guar- dian of one other, hold three-fourths of Gavella Ken’ ap Risshard, and one- fourth is escheat to the lord. The first of the lecta was in the hands of the descendants of a certain Lauwarghe, from whom it derived itsname. To his three sons, Risshard, Moridyk, and Kandalo, it had passed as three lecta or gavellae. The three sons of Risshard, named Madock, Kendalo, and Ken’, had in turn received their father’s share as three gavellae, and their cousins had inherited similarly. Thus 198 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS far there had been subdivision of the original lectum. Thence- forth these units allotted to the grandsons of Lauwarghe did not undergo formal subdivision. Yet each was by no means trans- mitted to a single heir; one of them might come to be held by as many as thirteen co-tenants. For the most part, each group of co-tenants, to judge from the names of its members, was de- scended from one of the grandsons of Lauwarghe, but for the future its bond of union was its joint responsibility for the rents and services due from the gavella which it now held “ integre.”’ In this manner did co-tenancy arise. Thus by somewhat devious ways the custom of transmitting a holding to co-heirs has been followed from Scotland and Ireland in the eighteenth century to Wales in the fourteenth. It is, as Seebohm has shown,! a usage apparent in early Celtic law, and from primitive times can scarcely have failed to influence the field system of a hamlet. The subdivision that went on in the Donegal township during two nineteenth-century generations had without doubt often occurred at an earlier time in Ireland, in Scot- land, and in Wales. Probably the early usage was to make the allotments for a year only; such a custom, as we have seen, was still observed in Scotland as late as the eighteenth century. In Wales, however, permanent allotments may have taken place before the sixteenth century, since Owen, describing Pembroke- shire, declared that the extreme subdivision of the lands of the Welsh in that county was due to the custom of transmission by gavelkind, a custom itself made illegal by a statute of Henry VIII? Whatever may have been the time when the subdivision among co-tenants came to be made for periods longer than a year, there is little doubt about the manner in which it took place. Each heir, the Irish account declares, demanded a portion of all quali- ties of land within the townland. As a result, small scattered parcels became the constituents of each allotment or holding. Certain of these parcels were of course arable, and so far as this was the case it was more or less necessary that the tenants should share in the ploughing; seldom can one of the co-heirs have had 1 English Village Community, pp. 193-194. 2 Cf. above, p. 187. a Res Sary ‘THE CELTIC SYSTEM } 199 enough horses or oxen for a plough team. Codperative ploughing must, in short, have been a custom complementary to the sub- division of holdings among heirs. Further, in so far as the parcels were arable and ploughed with a common plough they would tend to be, not block-shaped, but long and narrow, for such was the shape of the unit ploughed by the heavy plough. Pasture subdivided among heirs might fall into parcels of any shape; arable would in its nature separate into strips like those described by the Scottish reporters to the Board of Agriculture. The appearance of runrig can thus be explained as due to the custom of subdividing arable land of different qualities among co-heirs. This custom and its effects constitute the second of the distinctions which differentiate the field system of Celtic coun- tries from that of midland England. The first difference we have found in the markedly smaller size of Celtic townships. It has now become clear that the intermixed holdings of central England had one history, those of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales another. In the English midlands, virgates consisting of scattered strips had been fully formed when they were first described in the thirteenth century; after that they underwent little change through sub- division, the integrity of the virgate almost never admitting of fission into more than four parts. In Celtic countries, on the other hand, subdivision of a townland or a township sometimes first arose as late as the eighteenth century, and no limits were set to the lengths to which it might go. The distinction is fundamental for the comprehension of runrig, and explains the greater flexi- bility of its open-field arrangements. In a general way, however, the furlongs of open arable field cultivated in accordance with Celtic runrig presented an aspect not very different from that of an English midland township. We must therefore hasten to note two other distinctions between midland and Celtic arrangements, those, namely, which resided in the methods of tillage employed and in the grouping of the parcels of the tenants’ holdings. Relative to Welsh tillage the Denbigh survey of 1334 twice mentions a three-course rotation of crops; but in both instances the reference is to demesne lands and the usage was apparently of 200 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS ‘ recent introduction since these lands had been “ converted ”’ to it.1 Elsewhere in the survey there seems to be a tacit under- standing that old Welsh methods of tillage prevailed. What these had come to be in Pembrokeshire in 1603 Owen tells us: “The part of the sheere inhabited by the welshmen as before is saied, followinge their forefathers husbandrie regard more the tillage of oates then of the former graines. . . . [After folding cattle upon parcels of land from March to November] this lande they plowe in November and December, & in March they sowe oates in yt and have comonlie a goodlie Cropp, then they followe these landes with oates seaven eight or ten yeares together till the lande growe so weake & baren that it will not yeald the seede: and then let they that lande lie for eight or ten yeares in pasture for their Cattell.”’? Such tillage is like that of the Scottish outfield, and since there is no mention of continuously tilled infields we may conclude that it represents primitive Celtic usage. This tillage of Scottish or Welsh outfields was, of course, far removed from English midland methods. To take crops of oats for a succession of years from land which had been prepared by a preliminary dressing of manure, and then to turn the exhausted fields over to fallow pasture for another succession of years, was unknown in the valley of the Trent. More like midland practices was the tillage of the Scottish infield. On this there was often a three-course rotation of crops; but the tillage differed in that the three crops were all spring grains, the cultivation was continuous, and the absence of fallowing was compensated for by annual manuring. Such advanced practices must have been innovations in Scotland, probably not much antedating the seventeenth century.’ In English counties which may in early times have had a Celtic field system this particular development probably 1 “ Et sunt in dominico de terra arabili conversa in tresseisonas .. .” (Survey of the Honour of Denbigh, pp. 4, 230.) 2 Description of Penbrokshire, i. 61-62. ’ An account of “ two husbandlands ”’ at Lymouth in Berwickshire, dated 1651, gives detail for the infield and the outfield separately; two other descriptions of fractional husbandlands at the same place, earlier by a half-century, make no dis- tinction between infield and outfield lands. Cf. Hist. MSS. Commission, MSS. of Col. D. M. Home (1902), pp. 220, 212, 214. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 201 seldom took place.!. From the limitations of outfield tillage another escape, it seems, was devised and some approach to midland methods was made.? But this happened so early and the traces of outfield cultivation in England are so slight that the contrast between Celtic and midland tillage, sharp as it was in reality, is not very helpful in estimating Celtic influences in England. On this account it is desirable to determine for the Celtic system the attribute which we have so often found pertinent in midland England — the grouping of the parcels of a tenant’s holding within the arable area. In the fragmentary Welsh fields of the sixteenth century such grouping would tell us little. Where only a few tenants had each a parcel or at best a few parcels in the common arable field, the location of the parcel or parcels imports little, since the tenant’s reliance was upon his closes. If the grouping of parcels is to be important, the parcels must constitute the major part of the holding. So they did in Scotland and without doubt in Ireland. In the latter country, whenever townlands were subdivided each tenant desired a share of each quality of land. The location of the parcels of a holding was thus dependent upon the number and location of the different qualities of land to be divided. There can scarcely have been thought of dividing the townland into two or three equal compact fields. Indeed, it would have been impos- sible to do this unless nature had given to the township only two or three qualities of land in compact areas, and there would have been no occasion for doing it unless a fixed two- or three-course rotation of crops was to be established. The map of the Donegal townland, which has been reproduced above, shows no such divi- sion. The strips there assigned to three tenants were not scattered throughout the arable; in fact, in about one-half of it no one of the three tenants had any strip whatever. The field system evolved by Irish co-heirs and co-tenants in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was clearly not that of the English midlands. In Scotland the succession of crops itself prevented the sub- division of the outfield into three equal parts. Only about 1 But cf. below, p. 232. 2 Cf. below, pp. 221, 225-226, 271. 202 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS one-tenth of it was brought from grass into tillage each year, the remaining tenths being similarly treated in succeeding years. It is possible, however, that the infield may have met with tripartite division, since a three-course rotation of crops was usual there. Yet no advantage could have been gained by the marking out of three compact areas. All crops were spring grains and no fur- longs lay fallow; rights of summer pasturage, the main pretext for the tripartite division of English midland fields, were non-exist- ent. Nothing would have been sacrificed if the furlongs which in any year were devoted to barley had not been contiguous. Nor do the documents divide Scottish infields by hard and inflexible boundaries into three equal compact areas; the parcels of a hold- ing are not, for example, assigned to East field, North field, and South field. Absence of division by fields thus becomes a con- comitant of runrig and one of its distinguishing marks. It will prove important when the question of Celtic influence in England arises. Terriers from counties where such influence is suspected should, if the suspicion be correct, show no grouping of their parcels by fields. Before the subject of Celtic field arrangements is dismissed, it should be pointed out that the subdivision of arable in the manner of runrig was not, at any one time or place, an essential charac- teristic of the system. If the explanation of the origin of runrig above given be correct, such subdivision was rather an accident. Farms, townships, .townlands, which are found divided in the eighteenth century may well have been undivided a few genera- tions earlier. Landlords may at times, on the expiration of leases, have taken certain townships in hand and reconsolidated holdings; in the recompacted areas subdivision may once more have been permitted and the cycle again have runits course. Regarding Celtic countries, then, no sweeping statement can be made as to the precise aspect of the townships at any particular time. Some of them may have been entirely in the hands of one or two tenants, with no runrig manifest; others may have been much subdivided. The latter sort would in turn have assumed different aspects in so far as arable or pasture predominated. If the township were in bie ee -_ Se ee ee | ee ee ee ee THE CELTIC SYSTEM 203 devoted to pasturage, closes, more or less irregular in shape, would appear. In the Donegal townland the pasture was “ held in lots in common.”’ The map shows that the plots of pasture in the occupation of a tenant were about as much severed one from another as were the strips. Yet there was less reason for their being so and remaining so, since pasture is not so diverse in its qualities as arable and there was no question of common ploughing. One can, therefore, imagine co-heirs subdividing a pasturage township on broader lines than they would have thought applicable to one largely arable. For these reasons it is not improbable that such a township sometimes broke apart into closes which may have been to some extent consolidated. Probably this is what happened at times in Wales. There in the sixteenth century township after township consisted of closes, those of a holding being frequently contiguous. The principality seems at that time to have been much more of a stranger to run- rig than was Ireland or Scotland, a circumstance best explained by the Tudor prohibition of transmission by gavelkind and by the hypothesis of an early predominance of pasture. In Scot- land, as we know, runrig prevailed in the first half of the eighteenth century, and the situation in Ireland was without doubt similar. The reason must have been that arable was, or had been, rela- tively more extensive in these countries than in Wales. If this supposition be correct, the different aspects assumed by the fields of Celtic countries are only natural developments of a flexible field system. We are left, accordingly, with four distinctive characteristics of the Celtic field system. In the first place, the open arable fields were small, a necessary corollary of the small size of the town- ships; in the second place, they frequently consisted of the intermixed strips of several tenants, but this intermixture was variable, originating with and depending upon the extent to which subdivision among co-heirs or co-tenants had proceeded; in the third place, the rotation of crops, so far as we know it, was not winter corn, spring corn, fallow, but something quite different, viz., a succession of spring crops followed by several fallow years, 1 Archaeologia Cambrensis, Supplement of Original Documents, vol. i passim. 204 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS or an unbroken succession of three crops of spring corn upon land manured once every three years; finally, the tenants’ parcels were not divided between two or three large arable fields, and there is no evidence that fields of this sort ever existed. The influence of such a system in England is not altogether easy to trace in the documents at hand. One of its four charac- teristics will be of little assistance. The continued subdivision of holdings, farms, or townlands among co-heirs or co-tenants, per- haps the most striking feature of runrig, is only occasionally perceptible in western England. In general it seems to have given way before the more rigid requirements of the English manorial system, which preferred that the rent of a holding should be paid by relatively few tenants. Nor have we many instances to show that the English counties which bordered Scot- land or Wales favored a rotation of crops different from that which prevailed in the English midlands. In this matter, too, non-Celtic influences were early dominant. The smaller size of Celtic townships is a feature which is re- flected in several English counties. Useful as it is, however, in tracing Celtic influence, it yields in utility to the last of the four characteristics, the arrangement of tenants’ parcels in the arable fields. Where Celtic influence was felt, the parcels, we shall find, were closes, or irregular plats, or arable strips in runrig. Closes or plats may be expected to predominate in regions situ- ated near Wales and seemingly devoted early to pasturage; arable and the attendant runrig may be expected on the Scottish border. In no instance will there be a division of the arable into two or three large fields with a distribution of the parcels of hold- ings between them. Evidence on this point, so far as the terriers are concerned, will be largely negative. Only rarely will a terrier so clearly locate the strips of a bovate or a virgate as to render it probable that these strips were closely grouped within one part of the arable area of a township and hence not amenable to distribution throughout fields! Elsewhere we shall have to be content with such negative testimony as results from the omission, in all available descriptions, of those field divisions 1 Cf. below, pp. 208-210, 235-237, 245. THE CELTIC SYSTEM 205 which midland terriers more or less frequently contain. Hence it will never be possible to say regarding an English county, “‘ Here is clearly the field system of Scotland or Wales or Ireland.” We shall rather have to conclude: “Its fields lack the positive attributes of English midland fields, just as the fields of Celtic lands do. In their negative characteristics they are Celtic.” In so far as this conclusion is convincing, Celtic influence in England will have been established. This prefaced, we may begin our examination of the field systems of such counties of northern and western England as did not fall within the bound- aries of the two- and three-field system. Since Scotland intro- duced us to the Celtic system, the counties of the Scottish border may occupy us first. CHAPTER VI THE INFLUENCE OF THE CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND Northumberland Tue history of Northumberland open fields was nearly completed before the period of parliamentary enclosure. The reporters to the Board of Agriculture in 1794 declared that the parts of this county ‘‘ capable of cultivation ’”’ were ‘ in general well enclosed by live hedges,” the only exceptions being ‘‘ a small part of the vales of Breamish, Till, and Glen,” where enclosure was then in progress. They noted further that lands which were or might be cultivated by the plough constituted two-thirds of the county, an area equal to nearly twice that of Oxfordshire.1 Of acts of parliament earlier than 1760 Slater found two relative to North- umberland, enclosing respectively 1300 and 1250 acres of arable; of acts later than that date he discovered but six.2, Two of the latter do not distinguish between arable and common, in three others the amount of arable to be enclosed is estimated at 380 acres altogether, while at Corbridge only did the open arable field amount to as much as 945 acres.’ Parliamentary enclosure of common fields in Northumberland after 1760 is practically negligible. The earlier acts, those of 1740 and 1757, point to the comple- tion of an enclosure movement which had been in progress for a century and a half. Some information regarding this process may be obtained from the monumental History of Northumber- land, since the contributors, in their accounts of the various par- ishes, refer at times to the enclosing of the open fields. North 1 J. Bailey and G. Culley, General View of the Agriculture of the County of North- umberland (London, 1794), p. 50: ‘‘ Lands which are or may be cultivated, 817,200 acres; mountainous districts improper for tillage, 450,000 acres.” 2 English Peasantry, p. 294. The two earlier acts relate to Gunnerton (1740) and West Matfen (1757). 3 A History of Northumberland (in progress by the Northumberland County History Committee, vols. i-x, Newcastle, etc., 1893-1914), X. 143. 206 CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND _— 207 Middleton and Broomley, it appears, remained open until the beginning of the nineteenth century, undergoing enclosure in 1805 and 1817 respectively.! To judge from what happened in several other townships, however, the movement was most pronounced during the seventeenth century and the early eighteenth. Not only were the open arable fields of Seaton Delaval already en- closed in 1610, but articles of agreement looking to the enclosure of Cowpen were drawn in 1619, and the process was under way at Dilston in 1632.2, The tenants at Earsdon signed their articles in 1649, the same year in which the re-allotment at Pres- ton was completed.? At Backworth the open fields disappeared in 1664.4. The Ovington and Rennington enclosures, however, were delayed until the next century, the former being the work of commissioners appointed in 1708, the latter being asked for in 1707 but not carried out till 1720 and 1762.5 At Newton-by- the-Sea and Embleton the open fields disappeared a little later still, in 1725 and 1730 respectively.6 From such items, insufh- cient as they are, it seems not improbable that the greater part of the common arable fields of the county had been enclosed by the end of the first quarter of the eighteenth century. If so, Northumberland in its enclosure history resembles Durham, but differs markedly from the midlands.’ Even in the sixteenth century the transformation of Northum- berland fields had begun. At Lesbury, on December 6, 1597, the tenants resolved at the manor court that they would, “ be- tween this and the rst of March next, procure a survey of the South field in Lesbury, and that every tenant [should] have his land laid in several, and the same to dyke in convenient time after the said survey.” ® Clarkson, who made a survey of the township of Tuggal in 1567, intimates that it was largely if not wholly 1 Archaeologia Aeliana, new series, 1894, xvi. 138; History of Northumberland, vl. 143. = Fee of Northumberland, ix. 201, 325; x. 276. SS ibid’ valle 244 nes 1x4) aD libideaixe4O: 5 Archaeologia Aeliana, new series, xvi. 129; History of Northumberland, ii. 150. 8 History of Northumberland, ii. 45, 98. 7 Cf. above, p. 107, and Chapter IV. 8 History of Northumberland, ii. 424. 208 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS enclosed. After explaining that it had been “ divided at the greate suite of the Bradfords, who, havinge the moste parte of the towne in ther hands, wolde not agree with the other tennants in ther ancyent orders but with thretnings overpolled and trobled the said tennants in th’ occupacion of ther grounde,”’ he proceeds to consider measures “‘ that his lordship may have also the said towne planted in the anncyent orders with the same number of tenant cottigers, smithe and cotterells, to have ther groundes severallie enclosed by themselves, wherfor they dyd lye in com- mon, as well to the great strengthe of the towne as comodetie to them all.” Thus cautiously were proposals for enclosure ad- vanced in the days of Elizabeth. Perhaps the best conception of the earlier condition of North- umberland open fields and of the changes in progress at the end of the sixteenth century can be got from documents relative to Long Houghton. In this township, which lay on the coast and was the property of the duke of Northumberland, a survey was undertaken in 1567 to rectify mistakes made in the rearrange- ment of a few years earlier. The introduction to the survey explains what had been the state of affairs before the rearrange- ment. ‘The arable lande . . . [of Houghton Magna] lyeth for the moste parte nighe [the] sea syde, and is donged with the sea wracke . . . and, because of the greatnes of the said towne, the towne is now dividit in two partes, for that they were xxvii tenants besyde cotteagers, havynge alwayes and in every place every one tenant one rige by [him]sellfe, and so consequentlye, from ryge to ryge, that every tenant had one rige, then the first did begyn to have his a ryge for his lot agayne, and so by rygge and ryge it was in every place devidit amonge them to the great chardge and laboure of everye one of the said tenants: althoughe the same partition did geve to every tenant like quantite of all sortes of lande, yet it was so paynefeule to them and ther cattell that for the moste parte the said tennants did never manure ther 1 Farther on he notes that “‘at the late partic[iJon . . . the churche landes nowe in the tennure of Rolland Foster were layed altogether,’ and that certain crofts contained “ xii rigges before the particion of the towne ” (History of Northumber- land, i. 351, 353). ae —_— = CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND _ . 209 grounde threwgly, wherby they did fall in great povertie; and also ther severall grounde, called their oxen pasture . . . was in breaffe tyme over eatyng and maide baire of fedyng.”’ ! Such is the picture of an open-field township in which the dis- tribution of parcels throughout a large area had become intoler- able. To relieve the situation an unusual remedy had been devised. A short time before the survey of 1567 the arable area had been divided into a northern and a southern part, and the parcels of each husbandland (as a holding was called) had been confined to one or the other of these two divisions. To accomplish such an alignment parcels had been exchanged but not to any extent consolidated, as a later survey of 1614 makes clear. One of the fully described furlongs of this last survey, called ‘‘ Bastie lands,” is transcribed by the historian of the parish. In it each of thirteen husbandlands on the south side then had parcels, which usually contained about half an acre apiece.” Similar divisions of townships into two parts seem to have been not infrequent in Northumberland.* A survey of Acklington made in 1702 shows that one had there been accomplished, divid- ing the 173 farms into 83 on the north side and g on the south side At Lesbury, which adjoins Long Houghton, a division was proposed when the latter township was divided, and the matter was put into the hahds of the surveyor who has already been quoted. In this case, however, he pronounced against the division, chiefly on the ground that an equally good water supply could not be had for both parts. His account begins as follows: “Tt wer not good that this towne wer devyded into thre [farther 1 History of Northumberland, ii. 368. 2 Tbid., 378. The survey of 1567 was undertaken to adjust minor details. In the earlier division the tenants of the north side had got the poorer lands, and the boundary between the common pasture of the farms on the one side and the arable lands of the farms on the other was unsatisfactory. 3 At Rock before 1599, according to a map of that date, there had been a re- arrangement of farms as follows (ibid., 128): — “ Belonginge to 5 Farmes on the North Barne in arable, meadow, and pasture, 214 acres “« ry ° “« “« 7 « « « south side “« “« « “« or « “ as “ “ « moore 200 * “ “« 7 « « “« moore 280 « »” 4 Thid., v. 372. 210 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS- on he says “ two”’] severall townes, althoughe yt ys a greate towne, many tenants and cotteagers, every tenant having his lande lyeinge rigge by rigge and not in flatts nor yet in parcells of grounde by yt selfe, so that therby the labor of the tenants and their cattell ys muche more, to the greate dystruction of the said tenants.’’ In verification of this description, a survey of 1614 tells of a furlong (South Brig haugh) in the West field which contained 4 acres, 3 rods, 26 perches, in eighteen strips held by fourteen tenants." If we inquire what field system held together the widely- scattered parcels of Long Houghton before the rearrangement in the middle of the sixteenth century, the answer must be sought in a map of 1619, which is closely associated with the survey of 1614. Although the township had by this time been divided into a northern and a southern half, the boundary between the halves crosses what was clearly an older division into fields. These fields were three and they were unequal in size. Old and new arrangements by fields and by halves distributed the unen- closed arable as follows: — South field, 99 acres on the North side, 276 acres on the South side West field, 181 acres on the North side, none on the South side East field, 242 acres on the North side, 302 acres on the South side.? Although there is here the suggestion of an early three-field arrangement, the inequality in area between the fields is a ques- tionable circumstance. Especially great is the discrepancy be- tween the 181 acres of the West field and the 544 acres of the East field. Furthermore, if the midland division was known and after the rearrangement did not lose favor (there is no indication that the strips were consolidated or the method of tillage changed at the time), it seems strange that within fifty years three new fields had not taken form on the north side and three on the south. Of such, however, there is no trace in the map of 1619, which 1 History of Northumberland, ii. 418, 425. 2 Ibid., map facing p. 368. , CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 211 clings rather to an antiquated division. We are thus led to con- clude that no three-field system prevailed at Long Houghton in 1619, and that the three “ fields’ of them ap were never really such, but only convenient topographical names for different parts of the township’s arable. To get further information regarding the possible existence of a three-field system in Northumberland, we turn to other sur- veys made in the days of Elizabeth or James I. Many of them, accompanied by maps, exist in the archives of the earl of North- umberland, but the authors of the county history have seldom transcribed the information which might be at once decisive. They have not, except in one instance, given the distribution of the acres of the tenants’ holdings throughout the fields, an omis- sion which greatly increases the difficulties of the investigator at this point.! A notable feature about several of the maps and schedules which describe the townships belonging to the duke is their in- sistence upon a division of the arable into three or four fields. Round the village of Acklington, a map, probably made in 1616, shows three fields, North, South, and East, but it gives no areas.” The plan of Clarewood and Halton Shields, dating from 1677, pictures two groups of three fields but is equally reticent about their areas. On the Tuggal map of about 1620, what remained of the fields amounted to 71 acres in South field, 64 acres in Whittridg field, and 118 acres in Hedglaw field.t*| At Rock, too, according to the map of 1599, there were ‘“‘ remaines”’ of three fields — Earsley field containing 84 acres, Rockley field 70, Arksley field 131.5. The survey of Bilton, completed in 1614, assigns to three fields, also shown on a map of 1624, areas which give to South field 176 acres, to East field 138, and to North field 1 Unfortunately, I have been unable to examine the documents at Alnwick Castle. 2 History of Northumberland, v. 376. 3 Ibid., x. 389. Similarly, there is record of three fields, North, Middle, and Low, at Ovington, but no information about their respective areas or the appor- tionment of the tenants’ holdings (Archaeologia Aeliana, new series, 1894, xvi. 129). 4 History of Northumberland, i. 342. To Whittridg field should probably be added 26 acres in Townsend flat and 17 acres in Glebeland. 5 Tbid., ii. 128. 212 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS 216.1. At Rennington, where the fields seem to have suffered no diminution from their original size, there were, in 1618, 89 acres in South field, 248 in West field, 146 in North field, 6 in Orchard, and 29 in Barelaw field.2 It will be noticed that at Bilton and Rennington, those townships in which the fields were most intact, the areas of the three fields were distinctly unequal. Other townships divided their arable into four parts. At Shilbottle the fourth part, which was smaller than the others, apparently had no close connection with them. It was known as “ The Fower Farmes called the Head of Shilbotle ” and con- tained 200 acres; but its four tenants had together only 56 acres of pasture lying in the other three fields. The latter were known as North, Middle, and South, their areas being 347, 268, and 350 acres respectively.* Were it not for the ‘‘ Fower Farmes,”’ this division would wear somewhat the aspect of a three-field town- ship. Elsewhere the four fields bore conventional names, but their acres were unequal. The Lesbury fields, which, as we have seen, were in 1567 proposed for division, numbered four in 1614. Of these the West field, not shown on a map of ten years later, con- tained 110 acres, while the other three, Northeast field, East field, and South field, were much larger, comprising respectively 395, 246, and 287 acres. No combination here would evolve into anything like a three-field arrangement except the union of West field with East field, and even this, apart from the situation of the two, does not obviate considerable discrepancy. Slightly more Symmetrical were the fields of South Charlton in 1620. Three of them included meadow, and the subdivision gave to North field 142 acres of arable and 11 of meadow, to East field 122% acres of arable, to Middle field 583 acres of arable and 38 of meadow, to West field 147 acres of arable and 83 of meadow.® By combining the arable of East field and Middle field we should get a total only greater by about thirty acres than the area of each of the other fields, a not impossible three-field arrangement. At Lucker the four fields were less amenable to a three-field 1 History of Northumberland, 451-452, 456. 2 Tbid., 156-157. 3 Ibid., v. 416, 427, 429 n. 4 Tbid., ii. 416 sq. 5 Tbid., 307. oe ee CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 213 grouping, nor could they well have maintained themselves as four fields. Their names, too, were unusual. To Quarrell field were assigned 72 acres, to West field 97, to Bank quarter 158, and to Gawkland quarter 57.1! Here, as in the maps and ter- riers of several other townships, the same phenomena appear. Despite what superficially seems to be a simple three- or four- field arrangement, the inequality in the apportionment of the arable among the fields raises the question whether the subdivi- sion has more than topographical significance. There is, of course, a simple criterion in such cases, one to which resort has often been had. It is the distribution of the acres of a holding among the township fields. Only the inade- quacy of the transcripts in the otherwise elaborate county his- tory makes necessary inferences from other data. Yet a few terriers of the desirable kind are discoverable. The best refers to Rennington, a township in which, as has been noted, the West field contained 248 acres, the North field 146, and the South field 89. Since the terrier is a part of the survey which states these areas, one would expect some correspondence be- tween them and the apportionment of the acres of the holding in question. Yet scarcely any appears, the terrier assigning to the three fields 21, 2, and 10 acres respectively.2. West field and South field thus receive more than their due, while North field is markedly slighted. The terrier of a holding at Elford, made in 1 History of Northumberland, i. 234. 2 Tbid., ii. 157. The specifications of ‘‘ Trestram Philpson’s farme’ follows: — ) Tun as Acres Roods_ Perches House anderart ny lees <1 ceichcid occ sevsrsissers cree easing ais SIE I 2 384 Southwhreldtarra blew eters teste cites atancic otis eelacel aioe Reune Bata Io fo) 27% Orchard ae a TORN Schrier arn Me, POE os ues ° I 82 West field Ee RE Re ACE ar CERT ECC EES es Dr TOC 21 ° 54 Tas (ETRE TCA a gg GR eae Ree ie erat ee Z 113 Barlawerendie Mss = acest recat clecle si caiscelae sie cuss aisles’ ° OF I lit Rn@itwentyracresise cin. fobice Noevel lace Aoncceiersia clare \cvelsteis.ebe-ere-e « 3 30% Prin COWECLOSE ere eiaerteciorn te ttecttiate ace taree ras tea oe ate ate 3 In'iGowlands) Crokespoolet sae e.y5 yes et feszsueapausreyeis ce 68 ee ooo I in: the Meadow, Dayiles'< Setar to -(es ea diehstels cree «se cteidagee dare 3 2 2 3 8 2 2 I 2 32 I I Insthe‘Orchardvayninge.. sysee a ses sehack- (iets tye etait |- Eas ° 19 74 163 20} 163 28 Eight gaytes:in the Oxe pastures, 2.0.0. ccc e ceca enn ts 83 Some\of/acresiier.s.cio ne-20 see tees Sener ade Bekiee 214 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS 1621, has similar characteristics. There the arable lay largely in three ‘‘ quarters,’ North, East, and West, doubtless the prin- cipal divisions of the township fields; yet to North quarter were assigned 8 acres, slightly more than were given to the other quarters together, these receiving respectively 3% and 33 acres.' From Corbridge come particulars of the distribution of the demesne acres among four fields. In West field were 26 acres, in East field 112, in North field 84, and in Little field 25.? Since in the detailed list of “ riggs’ there is no separation of Little field from North field, it is possible that the two were tilled as a unit. If so, this composite field becomes as important as East field, but the insignificance of West field is only the more emphasized. Finally, the terrier descriptive of a holding at Great Felton in 1585 is concerned with only an East field and a West field. None the less, it fails to divide its acres evenly between the two, assigning to one 15 acres and to the other 5.3 In general, we are thus led to conclude that the acres of a North- umberland holding, whether apportioned to two, three, or four fields, were not disposed as they would have been in a normal township of the midland area. In some Northumberland terriers of Tudor and Jacobean days there is discernible a tendency to group fields along with other 1 History of Northumberland, i. 287. This holding of John Chaundler is thus described: — Acres Roods Perches © The house and: scite = ou... a2 a5 So Ae pees ee eet ° ° 30 Six butts of arable land lying among other lands in a croft there 2 Io Fowertene several parcells of arable land which lie on the North Lal Quarter contammp 56 a5.655 0 at bisie «sete eae tele eee 8 ° 35 Thirteen parcells of arable land lying on the East Quarter ... 3 3 30 Other parcels West: Ouarters..b sooo ood no ee 4 ee 3 2 ° Assmall parcel tying*in, East: Meade i:.35. 226.005.2002 esan ° ° 35 Another small parcel ssh kss so sae ghee Rae oA rcn ele dees ° ° 20 3 beaste gates in the Ox. Pastures <3 35.25, c coors foe arse ap POCA ce cle mora ative voPNSIS dee rayaie otctha Ma aanrds cee ae ene 18 Co Ng 2 Tbid., x. 124-130. 3 Tbid., vii. 252. Besides the tenement and a croft containing a half-acre, the holding comprised: — “2 closes in the east field of Felton . . . together of 12 acres 11 Selions in the same field ‘ super moores pett ’ of 2 acres At Chamley gappe 1 acre In the west field parcels called ‘ Botons peace,’ ‘ le lawe’ et ‘ le hedlandes,’ together of 5 acres 1 close of pasture . . . called ‘le birkeclose ’ of 8 acres.” CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND | 215 divisions of the arable area. Whether this be the fault of the maker of the survey or whether it points to the minor importance of fields is difficult to say. A Brotherwick terrier from the sur- vey of 1585 suggests the latter explanation.!_ Most of the selions (excluding those recently held by Thomas Pinne) lay in North field or in South field or adjacent to the ‘“‘ Lang-rigges.”” If all those in the list which fall between North field and South field be looked upon as lying in North field, the total much over- balances the number left for South field. If, on the other hand, the two fields stand independently toward the other areas, no three-field grouping is apparent, even if “ Lang-rigges”’ be exalted into a field. A tendency to neglect division by fields in enumerating the par- cels of a holding appears in one of the Northumberland surveys which has been printed in full.2, The survey is concerned with the open fields of two townships, Tynemouth and Preston, but it is incomplete. Only such fields as are about to be re-allotted receive attention. It is possible that all the unenclosed arable at Tynemouth was redistributed, but of this there is no certainty. If it was, only two fields, North and South, existed there and they were somewhat unequal in area.* The Preston fields are confessedly not described in full. Only “so much as was now presented to be divided’ appears in the total, which comprised 1 History of Northumberland, v. 258: — 16 selions of arable land in the North field 14 south of the “ Lang-rigges ” 4 in ‘‘ Whyte-lees ”” 3 “‘ super le Lang-rigges ” 2 “ by the Hall-well ” to in the South field 5 ‘“‘iuxta le snake hole ” 12 “in the Crokes, formerly held by Thomas Pinne ”’, 2 “The Terraire or Accompt of Measure of certain Lands lying within the Territories of the Mannor of Tinemouth and Preston, 1649,” Archaeologia Aeliana, new series, 1887, xii. 173 sq. < 3 “ Of the Particon of Tinemouth — Acres Roods Perches The Quantity of the South Feild of Tynemouth ........ 188 I 9 MheyBrocksicOntalnsnr xy som yeis «cles cits aus n se ss ole = sate alot wits 30 2 20 In the North Feild on the upper side of Monkseaton way 51 I 32 In the North feild more East from that and more Northerly 206 I 30 216 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS 1833 acres in North field, 137} in South field, and 1613 in Miller Leazes. This area was re-allotted to five copyhold “ farmes,”’ each containing 53 acres, but the former relation of these farms to the fields is not indicated. Such relationship is stated only for certain old freeholds, which are, however, not very satisfac- torily described.!. In them something is usually allotted to West field and to Miller Leazes, but there is considerable obscurity about North field; it will be noticed that, of the many rood par- cels that were ‘‘ next the Rake,” only one is located in that field. For the most part the strips are assigned to such areas as Dikan Dubb or the Long Dike, and it is impossible to group them by fields. If terriers like these be typical of the Northumberland surveys which were made in such considerable numbers prepara- tory to the re-allotment of holdings in the early seventeenth cen- tury, the surveys either contain little useful information about fields or show the acres of the holdings irregularly distributed. It may be urged, however, that we are here dealing with rela- tively late field arrangements, that in Northumberland the old system, whatever it was, had by this time begun to decay. The very ease with which a re-allotment of parcels was brought about, as at Long Houghton before 1567, testifies, one may say, to the laxity of the old ties. Laxity there pretty clearly was, and it 1 For three of them the details run as follows, the areas being in roods: — Location in Robert Ottway’s Robert Spearman’s |George Millburn’s Preston Field Freehol Freehold Freehold In the West Feild ..... 1, 1 anda butt, 4, 4, and 2 banks] 1 3 butts In Shedletch .......... 3 2, 2 riggs 6 Att Moor Dike: .c5:) =< 2, 1 and a bank oc I, 1 anda bank At Long Dike \....5../.- 22 I, I, I, I, 1, 1, 1 Short headland | 1, 1,1, 1,1 Bagh Att Dikan Dubb ...... 6,3, 5 3 4 Next the Rake......... 3; Tpke f, 20A AE E7331 3%,'2 6 (in the North field), 2, 1, 1, z 1 lee rigg Att Morton Way ...... 1 headland pie era In the watery Reens....| 3, 1 headland 2 butts In the Burnetts ....... 3 I In the miller Leazes .... eid I 2 In the Garland meadow. mite 1 and a meadow Spott In the Hundhill ....... ae 4 In the New Close ...... : Aric LE 3 CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 217 only remains to inquire whether earlier evidence hints at the strict observance of more inflexible rules and divisions. Numerous terriers of Northumberland holdings earlier than the sixteenth century are to be found in the feet of fines and in the monastic cartularies, especially in the record of a survey of the lands of Hexham abbey. All these documents agree in showing the prevalence of intermixed strips,! which were often no more than one-fourth of an acre in size. They agree further in seldom referring to fields, and are almost unanimous in never dividing the strips of a holding between two, three, or four fields. The parcels in question are assigned to divisions which in a midland area would have been called furlongs, shots, or quarentines, but in Northumberland were usually designated rigs, dales, flats, laws, and occasionally even fields. A terrier of 1479, which describes a husbandland containing 27 acres of arable attached to a tenement at Chollerton, illustrates most of these peculiarities.2 It is 1 At “ Mulefen ” the 12 acres which accompanied a messuage lay in 11 parcels; at “‘Copum ” two tofts were transferred along with 15 acres in 8 parcels; at “‘ Berewik et Bitewurth ” 10 acres were divided into 6 parcels (Ped. Fin., 180-3-22, 11 Hen. III; 180-4-61, 19 Hen. III; 180~-5-107, 30 Hen. III). Two deeds trans- ferring 7 and 12 acres at ‘‘ Thrasterston ’”’ enumerate 7 and 16 parcels respectively (Chartulary of Brinkburn Priory, Surtees Soc., 1893, pp. 43, 45). At Thockrington, about 1280, 20 acres of arable lay in 33 small parcels (History of Northumber- land, iv. 401). 2 James Raine, The Priory of Hexham (Surtees Soc., 2 vols., 1864-65), ii. 30. The description runs as follows: — “Et idem [Hugo Colstane] tenet xxvii acras terrae arabilis pertinentes tenemento praedicto, quarum ii acrae et dimidia acra ex parte australi rivulae de Eriane .. . Et super le Kilnflate ex parte occidentali dimidia acra “«~ * ~ Horslawspule dimidia acra Schothalghbankys ad Nithre dimidia acra Overschotlaubankes dimidia acra le Blaklaw ex parte orientali ejusdem dimidia acra Et ex parte occidentali ejusdem i acra « «~*~ orientali le Lons . . . ane i roda orientali Bronslauemedoue i roda Et super Bronslawflate ex parte occidentali dimidia acra Et ex parte boriali Bronslawmedoue buttando super eodem iii rodae Et super le Canonflatte . . . ji acra et dimidia « « * lez buttes iuxta le dyk . . . dimidia acra lez hevedlandes de Brouneslawflatte . . . iroda Et ad capud del Maynflatt . . . dimidia acra Et ex parte australi le Crosse . . . i roda Et super Holmersbank . . . dimidia acra Et in Harlawhop buttando super le Messeway dimidia acra Et ex parte occidentali iuxta le Harlaw dimidia acra « “ “ “ “« “« “« « “ “« “« 218 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS closely followed by a similar terrier describing a holding of 28 acres, the parcels of which are located with the same explicitness in the same field divisions.'. Apparently the husbandlands of a Northumberland township in the fifteenth century shared in all furlongs after the manner described at Long Houghton a century later,? and this without reference to any three-field arrangement. In contrast with the rather impressive bulk of negative evi- dence in the early terriers pointing to the non-existence of the midland system in Northumberland, a few items seemingly sug- gestive of it deserve notice. In a terrier of a half-carucate at Whalton the 524 acres “in campo ejusdem villae”’ are described in such order that, if the first two items be added together, four thirteen-acre groups result. It is noteworthy, however, that the name of only one field appears, that the half-carucate consisted of five relatively large blocks of land rather than of scattered strips, and above all that four of these blocks lay to the west of the village, two of them being carefully located in the West field.* Et super le Mesiway super eandem i roda Et ex parte orientali le lonynghed i roda Et super Aldchestre ex parte australi iii rodae Et ex parte occidentali super le Stobithorn i roda Et super Morelaw ex parte orientali ejusdem . . . dimidia acra =- ex parte boriali de Dueldrigge dimidia acra « * ~ orientali le Smythehopside dimidia acra Et in medio Craustrige dimidia acra Et ex parte orientali de Westraustrige i acra Et super Estraustrige ex parte occidentali i roda 2: ex parte orientali Fartirmerethorne . . . iacra « * australi terrae praedictae i roda Et inter Faltermere et lez Merlpottes i acra Et ex parte boriali lez Merlpottes i roda Et in medio Waynrig iii rodae 2: ex parte orientali le Brereryg i roda « * ~ orientali lez Hudesrodes i acra Et inter lez Kornhilles i roda Et in medio le Milnrig dimidia acra Et super Fulrig iii rodae Et in Swynburne-feld ex parte boriali le crosse i acra.” 1 Raine, Priory of Hexham, ii. 32. 2 Cf. above, p. 208. 3 Raine, Priory of Hexham, ii. 39. The description runs as follows: — ““Tenent etiam in campo ejusdem villae dimidiam carucatam terrae, viz., lii acras terrae et dimidiam, quarum Super Lindeslawe ex parte occidentali ejusdem villae iacent iiii acrae Et super le Flores ex parte occidentali prope dictas acras ix acrae Et in le Westfeld inter Walwyk et Leverchild xiii acrae vocatae le Burnflatt Ex parte australi molendini ibidem xiii acrae Et super le Farnelaw ex parte orientali villae ejusdem xiii acrae.” CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND ~- 219 These circumstances scarcely accord with midland arrangements. No more do the names and the allotment of acres in another thirteenth-century terrier, dated 30 Henry III.! Of the twelve acres which, according to this, accompanied a toft and were subtracted from four bovates at Billingworth, 4} are referred to Fast field; but the assignment of 2} to a field called Hypelawe and of 5} to a field called Horchestres-and-Bereacres destroys the symmetry of any three-field arrangement, quite apart from the fact that the names are unusual. Three early charters hint at two-field usages but without giv- ing definite assurance. At Whittonstall six acres were in the thirteenth century described as “‘ duas in tofto et crofto . . ., et in campo apud orientem iuxta spinam dimidiam acram, et iuxta viam .. . dimidiam acram, et in campo versus occidentem ili acras.”’2. A division which thus gives to the East field one acre and to the West field three acres is corrected in a Cramling- ton grant of the twelfth century, according to which thirty acres were so situated that there were “ xv in una parte villae et xv in alia”; still, these vague localities are not fields. An early grant which does locate its dales in two fields transfers 14? acres at Leighton, describing them as follows: — “In campo occidentali totas illas duas mikel dales et totas illas duas fair dales, quas Syuuardus et Robertus filii Stephani tenuerunt, cum toto prato in transverso marisci et totam Thirndale Roberti cum prato et totam Halledale Syuuardi cum prato et in campo orientali totas illas duas Horthawedales quas praedicti homines tenuerunt et ii dales totas in Prestesflat quas Thomas de Clenil ECMTES Oeim s 1 “ Quatuor acras et unam rodam que iacent in campo qui vocatur Estfeld . duas acras et dimidiam que iacent in campo qui vocatur Hypelawe . . . quinque acras et unam rodam que iacent in campo qui vocatur Horchestres et Bereacres ” (Ped. Fin., 180-5-113). * History of Northumberland, vi. 182, n. 3. Sli bid-. 11922 Our 4 (J. T. Fowler], Chartularium Abbathiae de Novo Monasterio (Surtees Soc., 1878), p. 85. 220 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Two fields are here, but the chronic irregularity of division is also present, especially so far as the lands of Syuuardus and Robert are concerned. Thus the early two-field evidence for the county is hardly more satisfactory than the three-field evidence has proved. From all the Northumberland testimony relative to fields only one item points clearly to three-field husbandry. This occurs in an account, written in or about the year 1596, of the expulsion by Robert Delavale, Esq., of the tenants of Hartley and Seaton Delaval, two townships near Newcastle-upon-Tyne.! In both, it is stated, each dispossessed tenant had been able to till “ 60 acres of arable land, 20 in every feild.”” Such even division of holdings among three fields is something hitherto not met with in the Northumberland evidence, and seems at first sight to con- stitute straightforward and convincing testimony that a three- field system existed in the county. Before this conclusion is admitted, however, the seemingly decisive passage should be more closely examined to see whether it admits of any other interpretation. In the first place, the assignment to these townships of hus- bandlands precisely similar in size and divided in precisely the same manner suggests that the writer, whose subject was in no way related to field systems, was mentioning the tenants’ hold- ings only incidentally and in a very general manner. Even in the most typical of midland townships the acres of the copyholds were not divided with this precision among the fields. If we ask for more specific evidence about the subdivision of a copy- hold at Hartley or at Seaton Delaval, we find that the editor of the county history has been obliged to make inferences in the one terrier of which he gives an account. At Hartley, William Taylor had, it appears, 105 acres which lay in three groups of shots or furlongs. One group was assigned to the South field and one to the North field, but either the third group was not assigned to any field or the attribution is missing through injury to the manuscript.2_ Although the editor conjectures that a West field was in question, he gives no reason for his belief, nor 1 History of Northumberland, ix. 124, 201. 2ibid:, 122: ii i i CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 221 does he make note, as he so easily might have done, of the areas of the parcels which fell within each group. Even at Hartley, therefore, we are left with something of the uncertainty which has thus far attended Northumberland maps, terriers, and surveys. A better reason than this ambiguity, however, for thinking that the Hartley and Seaton Delaval statements do not unques- tionably imply the existence of a three-field system is the possi- bility that the author, speaking as it were parenthetically, may have been referring to a three-course rotation of crops. This method of tillage, as is explained below, might appear where the open-field furlongs were not grouped into three compact fields.* From occasional items there is reason to think that in Northum- berland a three-course rotation was employed, at least upon de- mesne lands. Nine large consolidated parcels at Hextold were in 1232 so tilled that 513 acres were sown with wheat and rye, 78 with oats, and 50 were “ de terra wareccanda.”’? Although the division here into three parts was not precise, it was approxi- mate. Regarding other demesne lands no uncertainty exists, and it is furthermore obvious that they might lie in common. At Hepscott, for instance, an inquisition describes 88 acres of demesne “de quibus tertia pars iacet in warecto et pastura eiusdem warecti nihil valet per annum quia iacet in communi.” ® Though we have no corresponding information regarding the rotation of crops which was usual upon tenants’ land, it may well have been at times a three-course one. If so, the Hartley and Seaton Delaval statements perhaps refer to such a situation, and the term “field” is used carelessly in place of the more exact “‘ seisona.”’ If this seem an over-refinement of explanation, and if it be urged that a three-course rotation upon tenants’ lands was not far removed from a three-field system,‘ the extent of the negative evidence from Northumberland must once more be insisted upon. Similar avoidance of three-field indications is not characteristic 1 Cf. below, pp. 321-325. 2 Raine, Priory of Hexham, ii. 96. 3 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 2 (17). 4 The difference was, however, pronounced. Cf. below, pp. 321-325. 222 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS of the testimony from a midland county. Even if it be admitted that a three-field system at times appeared in Northumberland, it seems equally clear that an alien influence early made itself felt and differentiated the county from its southern neighbors. A ready conjecture would designate such an influence as Celtic, and evidence supporting the surmise is not wanting. One aspect of this evidence is the character of the terms used in describing Northumberland open-field strips and field divisions. At Long Houghton the parcels lay “ rigge by rigge,” ! and some terriers enumerate “ riggs” without giving areas.?. The descrip- tion, further, of a husbandland at Chollerton, which has been already quoted, shows how frequently the names of the furlongs ended in “rig.” * This nomenclature was, of course, the sub- structure of Scottish runrig. More decisive, however, than terminology is the appearance in Northumberland of the Scottish method of tillage. A descrip- tion of this in 1599 refers to what was perhaps at that time the persistence of an antiquated usage, but it is particularly instruc- tive as indicating the character of primitive husbandry in the county. It occurs in an account of the queen’s demesne lands at Cowpen, but relates as well to the lands of freeholders and lessees : — “At the layenge forth of any decayed or wasted corne feilde, and takinge in any new feildes of the common wastes in liewe thereof, everie tenaunte was and is to have so much lande in everie new fielde as everie of them layde forth in everie wasted or decayed corne feilde, or accordinge to the rents of everie tenaunte’s tenement in such place and places as did befall everie of them by their lott; and so hath everie of the quene’s tenauntes within the towne of Cowpon aforesaide, as well leassors, ten- naunts at will, as freeholders, contynewed the occupacion of all their arable lands by partinge by lott as aforesaide; and that after the layenge oute of everie wasted corne feilde within the 1 Cf. above, p. 208. 2 For example, the terrier of the demesne lands at Corbridge (History of North- umberland, x. 124). 3 Cit above, p: 217: a a oe CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 223 feldes and territories of Cowpon aforesaide, everie so wasted and layde oute corne felde nowe is and ever was reputed and used as the quene’s common wastes there are, until the same lately layde oute corne feildes or any of them be by generall consente of neighbours taken in, parted, and converted to arable lande or medowe again; ... [many tenants] affirme they alwayes so had used and enjoyed the same parted landes tyme out of mynde of man.”’! This description might well apply to the Scottish outfield, described at length in the preceding chapter. In Northumber- land, as in eighteenth-century Scotland, large parcels of land were temporarily reclaimed from the waste, reduced to tillage for a series of years, and then allowed to revert to waste again until they had in a measure recovered their fertility. In a newly-improved area each tenant had a share similar to that which he had had in the “‘ decayed corne feilde ” simultaneously ‘““layde forth”? or abandoned. Just how this procedure went on is illustrated by the following provision of a Corbridge court roll of 1594: “Item it is agreed at this courte for the devideinge of the land in Dawpathe, that betwen this and the next fawghe it shalbe equallie parted by the consience of xii men.’ ? Apparently the re-allotment of a furlong about to be brought once more under cultivation was entrusted to a com- mittee of villagers. Such a method of tillage accounts for the dispersion of a tenant’s strips and explains the persistence of such dispersion. Of immediate interest, however, is the probable relation of this practice to a three-field arrangement. Unless the arable area of a Northumberland township is to be thought of as en- tirely surrounded by a tract of waste, the permanent division of the arable into three equal compact parts is difficult to imagine in connection with the type of cultivation just described. As- sume, for instance, a three-field arrangement of the arable, with the waste lying in one part of the township — an arrangement usual in the midlands. Assume further that a furlong was to be “ decayed,” or allowed to drop out of cultivation. If this furlong 1 History of Northumberland, ix. 324. 2 Tbid., x. 270. 224 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS were adjacent to the waste, it might be replaced by another contiguous to the field in such way that the integrity of the latter would in a measure be maintained. But if the furlong lay in a field remote from the waste, how could it be replaced without destroying the compactness of the field in question ? Furthermore, the abandonment of furlongs within the arable area would under any circumstances make impossible the per- sistence of compact arable fields. Any field would always con- tain “‘ decayed ”’ areas, and the term “ field’ could at best be applied only to one-third of the entire area of the township, composed in turn of certain furlongs under cultivation and of others abandoned for a series of years. Since such a field would be very different in appearance and in mode of tillage from a midland field — would, in short, be a ‘“‘ seisona ’’— there is no reason why the term “ field”’ should have been used in North- umberland with its midland significance. Its non-appearance in the documents, or its use in them merely to indicate topograph- ically a part of the township or to designate one of the furlongs, at once becomes explicable. The infrequent use of the term in early charters, furthermore, is a guarantee that the field arrangements of the midlands did not extend to Northumber- land. That a system of Celtic type long persisted in the county is apparent from certain evidence offered before chancery in a suit relative to lands in North Middleton as they were prior to their enclosure in 1805. The fourteen ancient farms, which comprised about 1100 acres of arable, meadow, and pasture, were thus described: “‘ These farms are not divided or set out, the whole township lying in common and undivided.... The general rule of cultivating and managing the lands within the township has been for the proprietors or the tenants to meet together and determine how much and what particular parts of the lands shall be in tillage, how much and what parts in meadow, and how much and what parts in pasture, and they then divide and set out the tillage and meadow lands amongst themselves in proportion to the number of farms or parts of farms which they are respectively entitled to within the township, and CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND | 225 the pasture lands are stinted in the proportion of 20 stints to each farm.’”?! Although by the nineteenth century the bound- aries between arable, meadow, and pasture may have become more flexible than they were at an earlier time, there can be little doubt that the method of allotment here described was a survival of the principle that all land newly taken under cultivation should be equitably apportioned among the husbandlands. If it be impossible to look upon Northumberland tillage as identical with that of the midlands, there is, on the other hand, no difficulty in seeing how it could transform itself into the latter with ease. Were the cultivation of the arable in any township to become more intensive, the period of years during which a furlong could be allowed to revert to waste would have to be decreased. The ratio might become two years of productivity -to one of fallow;? with such a rotation once adopted, only the laying together of the fallow furlongs would be wanting to make the system one of three compact fields. If it may be assumed that this step was at times taken before or during the sixteenth cen- tury, some of the questionable indications of a three-field system which have been cited in this chapter are perhaps entirely authen- tic. At least there is opportunity, if any one thinks the evidence sufficient, for attributing to Harley and Seaton Delaval the practice of three-field agriculture.’ Viewed in all its relations, Northumberland thus becomes a transitional county, having affiliations on the one hand with Scotland, on the other with the midlands. Despite the nominal division of the arable of its townships into fields, a division some- times apparent in maps and terriers, the absence of an equal apportionment of the acres of the holdings among these fields has led us to doubt the midland character of the latter. Apart 1 Archaeologia Aeliana, new series, 1894, xvi. 138. 2 Seebohm, in his latest book, remarks that the co-aration of the waste described in the Welsh laws of the tenth century “‘ is an embryo form of the more advanced open field system of the settled agricultural village community. It is only necessary,” he continues, “‘ to extend the corn crop over a wider area and to subject the strips to a permanent rotation of crops, and the result would be holdings with scattered and intermixed strips and the vaine pdature over the stubble ” (Customary Acres and their Historical Importance, London, 1914, p. 6). 3 Cf. above, pp. 220-221. 226 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS from this negative testimony to the absence of a two-, three-, or four-field system within the county, the nomenclature employed relative to fields and the method of fallowing strongly suggest a Scottish connection. Entirely Scottish was the temporary im- provement of tracts of waste land, followed in turn by the aban- donment of them to their original state. Scarcely have Celtic characteristics been discerned, however, before Northumberland fields are seen to have been cultivated in a manner which was not precisely that employed in Scotland at the end of the eighteenth century. It is not clear, first of all, that there was a permanent infield, and still less is it clear that there was continuous tillage of any part of the arable which would make possible such an infield. All cultivable land seems to have been treated in the same manner — tilled, probably, under the rotation of two crops and a fallow. At times a new furlong was - improved from the waste, subjected to the usual cultivation for a series of years, and then allowed to revert to waste as another furlong was substituted for it. In Scotland, give-and-take of this sort was limited to the outfield; in Northumberland, it seems to have been applicable to all lands which at any time were brought under the plough. Another way in which a township of Northumberland differed markedly from one of Scotland was in its size. The surveyor of Long Houghton remarked upon “the greatnes of the said towne ’”’;! subsidy lists frequently point to the existence of a not inconsiderable number of tenants;? sixteenth- and seventeenth- century plans usually show a single large settlement within a large township area;* and, finally, the modern map reveals Northumberland as a county of villages rather than one of ham- lets. In Scotland, on the other hand, the townships, as we have seen, were usually small and the settlements in general had not a half-dozen houses. Northumberland, so far as concerns the area of its townships, was allied with the English midlands rather than with its northern neighbor. 1 Cf. above, p. 208. 2 See, for example, History of Northumberland, ii. 236, 365, 414, 472. 3 For example, ibid., 368, 413, 452. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND : 227 Such are some of the reasons for looking upon the county as a region which in regard to its settlement and field system was transitional between the Celtic and midland areas. Originally perhaps, except for the size of its townships, it inclined to be Celtic, but as cultivation of the soil became more intensive the three-field system practiced toward the south may have been in a measure adopted. Scarcely, however, had this taken place when the process of enclosure began, and with more rapidity than in the midlands the history of open fields in Northumberland came to an end. Cumberland In the period of parliamentary enclosure few open arable fields, it seems, remained in Cumberland. Slater cites only five acts which mention them, and of these but two specify the acreage.! The reporters to the Board of Agriculture in 1794 subdivided the county into 350,000 acres of lakes and mountains, 150,000 of improvable common, and 470,000 of old enclosures, making no rubric for open arable fields.2 These last had, however, been existent a half-century earlier. Eden, writing in 1794-096, de- clared that in each of six parishes tracts of cultivated common field ranging in area from 100 to 3000 acres had been enclosed within the preceding fifty years.* In the case of four parishes he added brief descriptions. At Croglin, he wrote, “a great part of the arable land still remains in narrow crooked dales, or ranes ’’; at Cumrew “ the grass ridges in the fields are from 20 to 40 feet wide, and some of them 1ooo feet in length” ; the greater part of Castle Carrock ‘‘ remains in dales, or doles . . . which are slips of cultivated land belonging to different pro- prietors, separated from each other by ridges of grass land ”’ ; the cultivated land of Warwick “ formerly, although divided, lay in long slips, or narrow dales, separated from each other by ranes, or narrow ridges of land, which are left unplowed.”’ 4 1 Twenty acres at Torpenton and 240 at Greystock (English Peasantry, p. 256). 2 J. Bailey and G. Culley, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Cum- berland (London, 1794), p. 9. 3 Sir F. M. Eden, The State of the Poor (3 vols., London, 1797), ii. 45-93. The parishes were Ainstable, 400 acres; Castle Carrock, 100; Croglin, 100; Gilcrux, 400; Warwick, c. 1100; Wetheral, 3000. 4 Ibid., 65, 67, 68, 92. 228 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Glebe terriers drawn up a century earlier (about 1704) illus- trate at length these descriptions.'. Sometimes the parcels of the glebe were not numerous and comprised but few acres. At Addingham there were 7} acres in five parcels, at Hayton 6} acres in four parcels, at Castle Carrock 7} acres in seven parcels. Elsewhere parcels were more numerous and the total areas greater. At Hutton-in-the-Forest twelve parcels contained 18} acres; at Melmerby (besides 12 acres enclosed) twenty-two par- cels contained 14 acres; at Skelton thirty-one parcels contained 32 acres. Typical of these terriers, and instructive as to the size of the strips, the subdivision of them into riggs, and the names of the open-field areas in which they lay intermixed, is the description of the glebe at Orton.? Apart from parcels of moss and rights of pasture over the moors, the parson had sixty- three riggs and one butt of arable, with various small pieces of meadow at the ends of these and certain raines or strips of turf 1 See Cumb. and Westm. Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., Trans., new series, 1910, X. 124 Sq. 2 Ibid., 1893, xii. 137 (also new series, 1910, x. 124). The specifications run as follows: — “Tn the West field in the Croft 11 Riggs with a Head Rigg, 3 acres [This parcel and each following one is bounded.] In Low Croft or East Roods 4 Riggs with a Raine between them and a piece of Meadow at the North End, 1 acre In the West Roods 4 Riggs, one acre . . . with a rigg of John Robinson’s between them At the Croft Head two large Riggs . . . 1 acre At the Parson’s Thorn two long Riggs, one acre... . In Crossland two Riggs, 1 acre . . . with a piece of Meadow at the South end . In the Shaws three Riggs, one acre with a piece of Meadow at the lowend .. . In the Organ Butts two small Riggs, half an acre... . In Inglands two Riggs, one acre with a small piece of Meadow at the lowend.. . In Sheep Coats two Riggs, one acre with a broad Raine between them and a piece of Meadow at the lowend... In Crabtreedale two Riggs, one acre with a piece of Meadow at the low end of them . . . In Grayston Butts two Riggs, half anacre... More in Grayston Butts two Riggs, half an acre .. . In the Shaws more two Riggs, half an acre. . . Glebe in Orton Rigg Field. In ye West end four Riggs, half an acre . . At the Parson’s Lees eight Riggs . : ., two acres with a Daywork of Meadow at the North end Glebe in Woodhouses Field In Bredick two Riggs, half an acre... . Underbricks, a butt ... Upon the Bank or Priest bush three Riggs with a piece of Meadow at the Northend .. . In the East Field four Riggs, three roods with a piece of Meadow at the Northend.. . In Great Orton Moss a large parcel of Moss In the Flatt Moss another great parcel of Moss Common of Pasture for all the Parson’s cattle with four Dayswork of Turf upon all the Moors of Orton within the Parish.” OO Ey CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 229 between them. The riggs lay in twenty divisions of the field and contained about 19 acres, from two to four riggs constituting an acre. Four fields are mentioned, but they take their places along with such curiously-named areas as “ the Shaws” and “‘ Underbricks.”’ No grouping of strips by fields is perceptible. Descriptions like these at once establish the former existence of open-field intermixed strips in Cumberland. The period at which they were consolidated and enclosed cannot be here in- vestigated. Slater accepts Wordsworth’s conjecture that a movement in this direction was not “ general until long after the pacification of the Borders by the union of the two crowns.” } What is without doubt is that in 1665 the estimated areas of certain townships, apart from common pasture, could be de- scribed as ‘‘ Inclosed Ground — meadow, pasture, and arable.” In this list are assigned to ‘‘ the Lawnde or close of Heskett ” 2500 such enclosed acres, to the hamlets of Serbergham and Scotby 750 and 700, to Gamblesby 1870.” Early in the reign of James I the twenty-five tenants at Plumpton Park had enclosed their holdings, save that five had an interest in Le Haythorne- fields.” ? By the middle of the seventeenth century enclosed townships were therefore easy to find. Leaving aside the date of enclosure, we may refer at once to Tudor and Jacobean surveys in order to determine, if possible, what was the nature of Cumberland open fields. Sometimes, it appears, all holdings were in meadow, as in the mountain town- ship of Matterdale;4 again, as at Cokermouth, we learn that there were arable acres “in communibus campis,” but we learn no more.®> Elsewhere, however, certain features that seem to have been characteristic of the field system of the county are discernible, and of these the first is the grouping of rather small fields round correspondingly small hamlets. In determining the areas of townships we are likely to be mis- led if, retaining the midland point of view, we give attention 1 English Peasaniry, p. 258. 2 Land Rev., M. B. 258, ff. 64-65. Hesket was one of Eden’s open townships, but there is a High Hesket and a Low Hesket. 3 Land Rev., M. B. 213, ff. 1-10. 4 Land Rev., M. B. 212, f. 270. 5 Exch. K. R., M. B. 37, ff. 4-8. 230 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS merely to the area assigned to a Cumberland manor. In the midlands, manor and township tended to coincide, the latter being relatively large and comprising a single settlement also relatively large. A different situation has come to light in Herefordshire. There a manor comprised several townships, each containing a small settlement, more properly a hamlet than a village. Cumberland units were like those of Herefordshire: the manor was composite, the townships were small, the settle- ments were hamlets. No survey shows these features better than one of Holme Cultram, made in 2 James I! At that time this old monastic manor was divided into four quarters, called Abbey, St. Cuth- bert’s, Loweholme, and Eastwaver. The tenants of each of the four are mentioned in alphabetical order, and their holdings are located, with statement of areas. The names used in locating holdings turn out upon examination to be those, not of fields, but of several contiguous hamlets which lie to the west of the village of Holme Cultram. A summary for the Abbey quarter is as follows: — Name of Hamlet Number of Tenants Total Area in Acres SWINESUG gos. aici Aorsiecoes ae eres se) 116 Sowterdield 6 260, ete sem cay 5 184 IGEtH Pee eas tases: 9 963 Hip Loese IAs. ci aE. 13 1293 Abbie Cowpersc}: ssnctrs. bersais 13 203 Sanden Housess:. fas. 6 sebt> oe 13 1683 Browne Riggs iis.cccke eee aie 6 220 The quarter, whichitself was only the fourth part of the manor, thus broke in turn into seven townships, the largest comprising only 220 acres. Since the holdings are described as “‘ arable, meadow, and pasture,” a part of each township must be set aside as non- arable. We thus have an agrarian situation in which the units of settlement comprised not more than fifteen tenants and the arable area contained usually less than 150 acres. Not dissimilar were the hamlets and fields of the manor of Hayton. A map and schedule of 1710 describe the “ infields ” as comprising 1478 acres, the common or waste 3178 acres. 1 Land Rev., M. B. 212, ff. 307-380. il ae — ; CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 231 Within the infields, according to the map, were six hamlets — Hayton, Fenton, Edmond Castle, How, Faugh, Headsnook. Hayton and Fenton gave their names to quarters which con- tained respectively 440 and 528 acres, the one being occupied by forty-five “ toftsmen,” the other by forty-three. A quarter probably embraced the lands of more than one hamlet; for, even if it is not clear that Edmond Castle was included in Hayton quarter, there can at least be no doubt that How fell within Fenton quarter. The improved land of either How or Fenton must therefore have comprised about 200 or 300 acres, an area somewhat larger than that of the Holme Cultram hamlet-fields.1 The size of other Cumberland townships may be discovered in a survey of 1608 which relates to the “‘ Castle Soake and De- maines of Carlisle.” * Enough of the place-names can be identi- fied on the modern map to make it clear that locations are by hamlets. The “Standwicks freehold,” to which are assigned fourteen free tenants and 153 acres, was no other than the township of Stanwix, a hamlet just across the river from the Castle. The fields of Currock, Blackwell, Upperby, and “ St. Nicholas Hill” are grouped together. In them sixteen free tenants had 192 acres and nine customary tenants 99 acres, about one-fourth of the total area being meadow and pasture. Other hamlets were Almery Holme with twenty-one tenants in . possession of 51 acres, and Wery Holme with thirty-one tenants possessed of 130 acres. The fields of no hamlet in the survey contained so many as 300 acres, and usually a far smaller number. This illustration, together with the two preceding ones, may suffice to determine our conception of Cumberland settlement. We must think of the county as peopled by groups of from five to thirty tenants dwelling in hamlets round which the arable fields were seldom 300 acres in extent, and often not above 50 or TOO acres. From this first characteristic of Cumberland fields we pass to a second — the distinction occasionally noted between infield 1 Cumb. and Westm. Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., Trans., new series, 1907, vii. 42 sq. 2 Land Rev., M. B. 212, ff. 129-158. 232 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS and outfield. In the Hayton map of 1710 already referred to the arable is designated “infields”’ in contrast with the encir- cling waste. More striking is the name given to one of the hamlets of the manor. On the edge of the infield next the common was a tiny settlement called Faugh, and elsewhere on the map of Cumberland the same place-name is to be found.! It is, of course, the term which in Scotland was applied to that part of the outfield brought under occasional cultivation. The situation of Faugh on the Hayton map at a point where infield and outfield meet suggests a settlement due to the permanent improvement of the waste. In other Cumberland documents we learn further that a holding might consist of specific amounts of both infield and outfield. In a survey of Fingland made in 36 Elizabeth each of the eight tenants had “ 16 acre terre arabilis in Infield et 10 acre terre arabilis in Outfield.” * That the out- field was arable and was allotted in specified amounts implies an improvement of the waste before the end of the sixteenth cen- tury. This confirms our conjecture as to how the hamlet of Faugh may have arisen, and suggests that the situation which was characteristic of eighteenth-century Scotland was a transi- tional one in sixteenth-century Cumberland. Further light is thrown upon the appropriation of the outfield . by two surveys of Soulby, a hamlet of the manor of Dacre.* In g Elizabeth Soulby was occupied by ten tenants, each of whom had a messuage with from five to seven acres of arable and meadow adjacent thereto. Besides this, there was assigned to each one acre of meadow “ apud Bradhoomyre,” two acres of arable ‘“‘apud le Tofts,” two of pasture “in Sourelands,” and two of pasture ‘“apud Fluscoo.” In another survey of some forty years later the pasture in Sourelands and Fluscoo had become arable or arable-and-meadow, while a fifth area, called Woodend and Crakowe, had appeared.t In this last area each tenant had 23 acres of pasture or of pasture-and-arable. The two surveys sug- gest that there were appurtenant to the tenements at Soulby four 1 For example, a hamlet of Ainstable is called Faugh Heads. 2 Land Rev., M. B. 212, ff. 82 sq. 3 Land Rev., M. B. 213, ff. 26-29). 4 Ibid., ff. 47-48. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 233 or five large parcels of the outfield or waste, each of which had been divided with precision among them and thenceforth appeared in the surveys, sometimes as pasture, sometimes as arable. Such a description, of course, applies rather well to certain furlongs of a Northumberland township, but even more accurately to the Scottish ‘‘ folds” or ‘‘ faughs,” those divisions of the outfield which were brought under crops for a number of years and then allowed to revert to pasture for a corresponding period of time. It should be added that both Soulby and Fingland were small townships, each containing less than two hundred acres and each having not more than ten tenants. A field situation not unlike that perceptible in these townships is described in a somewhat confused Elizabethan survey of Lazonby.! Besides noting the acre or two adjacent to each tenement, it recounts a large number of field names — more than fifty. Since half of them are mentioned in connection with only one tenement apiece and are applied to but small areas, they must have referred to parcels of land in the possession of single tenants. Fifteen other field names recur two or three times, and in these areas, which seldom contained so many as five acres, two or three tenants shared. In the following field divi- sions a greater number of tenants had parcels: — Field Name Number of Tenants Total Area in Acres Outelayerclose’. 2. 7..25 72.0.5). 27 87 Wevblolme aoe: 42k doce ct 13 15 + 10 (enclosed) Ie Holmebushes) ej... cle. =: 16 2 Redmore (arable) ............ 19 173 Hallines(meadow) es. 7 see 13 132 Wevcingets Mss ter. wa tach eile 9 nC Keld head (meadow).........- 8 83 Kelderdales (meadow) ........ 4 5a Galloberg: Soc. acne fee & 03 In these larger areas the shares of the tenants inclined to be more or less equal. Holdings in Le Holmebushes were usually § of an acre, in Outelayerclose 2} or 5 acres, in Halling and in Red- more 2 of an acre, in Gallowberg 13 acres, and in Le Linge 2 acres. The equality of partition and the character of the names 1 Land Rev., M. B. 212, ff. 1-7. 234 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS suggest that here too there had been improvement of the waste in which many tenants had shared. “ Ling” is a term applied to a common;! Le Holmebushes bespeaks a brewery; Outelayer- close is reminiscent of outfield. It is not improbable that at Lazonby there was practiced the temporary appropriation of cultivable land, perhaps followed by its reversion to waste — a procedure suggested at Soulby and Fingland and well known to Northumberland and Scotland. Although this characteristic seems discernible in Cumberland tillage, the location of the acres of a holding one to another has not yet become apparent. At Soulby the half-dozen acres of each tenant’s infield appear to have been consolidated, since they are described as having been ‘‘ adjacent”? to the tenements.’ At Lazonby the undivided areas may have been similarly situ- ated, but we cannot tell. A survey of Ainstable made in 19 Elizabeth assists a little in elucidating this important point.’ To each of the three constituent hamlets of ‘‘ Southeranraw,” Ruckroft, and Castledyke it assigns some half-dozen tenants, with holdings of about ten acres apiece in the respective hamlet- fields; but regarding the position of these acres we learn nothing. The remaining tenants seem to belong to the hamlet of Ain- stable proper. Although sometimes the holdings here are not located, at other times they are said to have lain largely in South field or Kirk field. When this is the case, each was, except in one instance, entirely within one or the other of these fields. Some- times, too, the acres of a tenant of one of the other hamlets lay wholly or partly in South field. Now, South field and Kirk field were pretty clearly not hamlet-fields attached to different hamlets, but were the two fields of a single township. Nor can the acres which fell within them be looked upon as enclosed, 1 Cf. below, p. 326. 2 Once the account adds that they lay to the south (ex austro), once that they were enclosed, twice that they were called Lyngarth. 3 Land Rev., M. B. 212, ff. 7-12. 4 In South field were three tenements of 5, 43, and 4 acres respectively; in Kirk field there were six containing in all 24 acres; one tenement had 13 acres in South field and 2 in Kirk field; another had 5 acres in Kirk field and 2 in Low field; one tenement of ro acres lay in Low field. The acres of six tenements are not located. Ee CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND © 235 since the survey takes pains to distinguish its enclosures,! and at times states that a tenant’s acres were scattered.2, The con- clusion, then, must be that, if a Cumberland hamlet had two open fields, the acres of the holdings were not divided between them but lay distributed throughout one of them. This implies further that the dispersion of parcels was not very great, since it was possible to gather all those of a holding within an area described as one field. A similar situation is pictured in part of a description of the manor of Bromfield entitled ‘ The Survey of lands in Alenbye now in the tenure of Jenet Shaw widoe and Michell fawcon.” 3 The first rigg which each tenant held is said to have lain in the East field, and the four following riggs were presumably in the same place. Thereafter one butt, two riggs, and two “ Ing- dailes”’ are definitely said to have been in this field, and the location of only three butts is left uncertain. Without much doubt the parcels of the two tenants lay almost entirely within the so-called East field of Alenby. A like tendency toward segregation rather than wide distri- bution of the parcels of a holding appears in certain glebe terriers. At Hutton in the Forest the twelve strips of which the glebe 1 For example, “‘ John Gibson tenet unum tenementum et unam clausam eidem ibidem adiacentem . . . continentem ii acras terre, prati, et pasture, et unam peciam terre in South field.” * Appurtenant to one holding was a messuage, an acre close, and eight acres of arable, meadow, and pasture lying “ diversim in campo ibidem vocato South- field.” 3 Add. Char. 17163, 1 Eliz. The specifications run as follows: — “ Ayther of them one Rigg in the estefeyld called Ingdales Ayther of them a Rigge called totteryge Ayther of them another Rigge called lange smele Rige Ayther of them one Rigge upon borwe Ayther of them A wawcaye Rige Ayther of them one but in the same feyld called udge on butt And Ayther of theym one Rige in the said feld called grige Also Ayther of theym haith one Rige of medo lying in the este field in one plays called the mire Doyle conteyning by estimation two parts of one acar Item two Ingdailes lying in the newe Inge in the same contening by estimation one half Acar belonging Evenlye betwyn the said tenants Item Ayther of the sayd tenants haith one but called the crosse but, et Ayther of theym haith one wheat but lying on the weste syde of Alenbye mill Item Ayther of them haith one Dryebut of the weste syde Item Ayther of them haith one cowegate in the griff Ing als leckryge Also there is comen of pasture and turf graysce for there Rate of the comen of Alenbye.” 236 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS was composed (a total of 18} acres) were described in 1704 as “all . . . butting on the pasture,’ ! a situation which precludes their distribution throughout the entire arable area. In another terrier inserted at the end of the register of Wetheral is a list of the parcels of land which in 1455 belonged to the prior at Warwick, a village near Carlisle. A glance at the description will show that many parcels either lay in or abutted upon “ Les Halfakyrs,” and that Les Halfakyrs in turn abutted upon the ' Cumb. and Westm. Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., Trans., new series, 1910, x. 126. 2 J. E. Prescott, Register of the Priory of Wetherhal (London, 1897), p. 374. The specifications run as follows: — ““ Terrae de Morehouse jacentes in diversis locis infra Dominium de Warthewyk pertinentes Priori de Wedyrhale .. . Imprimis predicti juratores praesentant et dicunt quod sunt infra dictum Dominium i acra vocata le Toftlandakyr cuius unus finis abuttat super Bromlands et alius finis versus Lynstock Item dimidia acra terrae cuius unus finis abuttat super les Bromlands et alius finis versus Lynstock Item iii rodae de Jes Bromland buttantes super terram quae vocatur le Bromylcroft Item i roda et dimidia terrae buttantes super altam viam et super les Bromlands Item le Tendlatheakyr buttans super altam viam et super communam de Warthewyk Item i roda terrae jacens super Roclyfbank et buttans super le Skewgh Item i acra terrae jacens super Roclyfbank et buttans super le Skewgh Item iii acra terrae jacentes super Roclyfbank et super dictum Skewgh Item i acra parcella de les Halfakyrs abuttans super Henry-holme et super les Halfakyrs Item dimidia acra terrae parcella de les Halfakyrs abuttans super Henry-holme et super les Halfakyrs Item i acra terrae parcella de les Halfakyrs abuttans super Warthewyk-wath et super les Halfakyrs Item le Shouptreflat continens ii acras parcella de les Halfakyrs abuttantes super Rot- clifyate et super les Halfakyrs Item ii acrae parcella de les Halfakyrs abuttantes super altam viam et super aquam de Eden Item dimidia acra parcella de les Halfakyrs abuttans super altam viam et super aquam de Eden Item dimidia acra parcella de les Halfakyrs abuttans super altam viam et super Mydle- holmewath Item i acra terrae vocata le Goteakyr jacens in longitudine per aquam de Eden Item i roda terrae vocata Strawfordrode abuttans super aquam de Eden versus castellum de Lynstok et super les Bothomrodes Item ii acrae terrae vocatae Grastanflatt jacentes super les Shortbutts versus aquam de Eden Item le Stockflatt continens v acras terrae abuttantes super le Soketflatt et super altam viam Item le Pittflatt continens ii acras terrae abuttantes super altam viam et super le Goteakyr Item dimidia acra terrae abuttans super altam viam et super le Syke vocatum Whet- land syke Item ii acrae jacentes super le Butbrome et super les Halfakyrs et super altam viam Item ii acrae terrae abuttantes super terram de Aglunby et super terram vocatam Fulla-lands Item i acra et dimidia terrae vocatae Fulla lands abuttantes super altam viam et super les Halfakyrs et super Fulladub Item i acra terrae vocata Stanbryglands.” _ — a a CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 237 alta via and the aqua de Eden. Every parcel in the list except the last one and the three in Roclyfbank is thus described fully enough to be brought either into immediate contact with the alta via or the aqua de Eden, or into contact with some parcel which touches upon one of them. The chain becomes continuous, except for four parcels about which we are insufficiently informed and which at best contain only one-sixth of the total area. Un- less the entire open arable field of Warwick abutted upon the alta via and the aqua de Eden, we may safely conclude that the prior’s acres lay segregated in one part of it. Early and late terriers thus concur in segregating to some extent the parcels of a holding. Perhaps not too much should be made of this feature, since we are not well informed of the precise extent of the fields to which the foregoing terriers relate. Yet one aspect of the subject seems clear, — the grouping of strips which prevailed at Ainstable, Alenby, Hutton, and War- wick was not consistent with a two- or three-field system. Whether the parcels of arable were markedly segregated or not, their distribution throughout two or three large fields is not at all perceptible. One should formulate no conclusion, however, without giving attention to earlier testimony. Little of this is to be found in the feet of fines, but a few instructive thirteenth-century terriers are embedded in the cartularies of Holme Cultram, Wetheral, and St. Bees.!. Noteworthy is the unanimity with which these terriers locate their parcels by furlongs, without any attempt at grouping them by fields. At Wetheral, for example, the 4 acres that accompanied a house and croft consisted of nine such parcels, and another grant of 1% acres refers the parcels to eight locali- ties.2 Sometimes the specifications are full enough to show that the localities were not after all remote from one another. This was the case with 10 acres and 3 perches which St. Bees acquired at Rotington.? All parcels except the first lay adja- 1 The cartulary of Lanercost priory I have not been able to examine. 2 Prescott, Register of Wetherhal, pp. 136, 141. 3 Harl. MS. 434, f. 169 (a late thirteenth-century cartulary). The specifica- tions run as follows: — “‘ Due acre et dimidia iacent in meysigwra inter moram et campum quod vocatur Kenelflat Item una acra que vocatur garebrad iacet iuxta terram que vocatur Kirkeland.. . 238 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS cent to “ Kirkeland ” or to “‘ Wynnefoth,”’ which were in turn connected by the fourth parcel. If we knew that the terrier referred to a tenant’s holding, we should have clear evidence bearing on the segregation of parcels. That we do not points to our need of terriers that describe bovates, the unit in which lands were rated in Cumberland. Happily such terriers are available from five townships. At Melmorby, in the eastern mountains, the bovates were undivided plats. One is described as “ illam bovatam quae iacet propin- quior terrae Adae filii Henrici versus orientem”’;! two others are “illas quae iacent inter terram Beatae Mariae Karleoli et Littilgilsic.” 2? Near the western coast at Blencogo much the same plat-like character must have pertained to “ duas bovatas terre . . . iacentes propinquiores porte ex occidentali parte ville.’ * Since, however, the two had been given as a dower (in liberum maritagium) and were not accompanied by mes- suages, they may have been demesne lands. At the mountain hamlet of Caber two bovates are somewhat similarly described, about 1240, as comprising one parcel of land probably rather large, three professedly small, and a parcel of marsh.* From Warwick, whence we have already had the terrier of the Wetheral lands in 1455, comes the description of a bovate which was given to the priory soon after 1175. It consisted of ‘‘ quinque acras Item dimidia acra iacet in fridaylandes et extendit se . . . a bercaria usque ad... Kirkeland .. . Item una acra et septemdecim perticate iacent iuxta Bercariam . . . inter terram que vocatur Wynnefoth et . . . Kirkeland Item una crofta . . . que continet in se unam acram et sex perticatas iuxta... Kirkeland Item tres acre et tres Rode et dimidia iacent inter Bernardhou et Brezhou et extendunt se in longitudine de Wynnefoth usque ad seberth.” 1 Prescott, Register of Wetherhal, p. 289. 2 Tbid., 291. 3 Harl. MS. 3911, f. 57) (an early fourteenth-century copy). 4 “Totam terram a superiori parte Mussae ad Neubussehill sicut le silkette descendit a predicta Mussa usque ad viam ad Surflatende et sicut dicta via tendit usque . . . [etc., bounded at length], et in Bacstanegyle et in Bochum duas acras et dimidiam, et quandam partinunculam terrae quae vocatur le Gare . . . et ab angulo fossati de Communa duas acras terrae in latitudine versus Mussam... et totam meditatam Marisci Scalremanoch versus meridiem ” (Prescott, Register of Wetherhal, p. 283). CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND ~ 239 in Westcroft, et duas acras in Graistanflat, et unam acram iuxta holm cum prato ad predictam terram pertinente.’”! These four early bovate terriers show no marked distribution of par- cels. One describes the acres as lying in five places (including the marsh), another assigns them to three, while two terriers imply that the bovates were consolidated. Different is the fifth terrier, superior to the others in that the bovate which it describes was appurtenant to a messuage. The land lay at Tallantire, and was granted to St. Bees late in the thirteenth century. It consisted of twelve parcels, but there is little indication how these were situated relative to one another.? Only two lay in the same area, Biggehove, the others being in different furlongs. In the absence of descriptive locations we cannot tell how widely these furlongs may have been separated; but at least they formed a group distinct, with one exception, from the group in which nine other acres in Tal- lantire lay. The latter are described in a grant which appears to have been contemporary with the other one, since to some extent the names of the witnesses are the same; like the first, its acres were attached to a toft and probably constituted a holding. If such were the case, we have two tenements in the same township, each comprising several parcels, but parcels which in only one instance lay in the same furlong (Bighou).* While this does not 1 Prescott, Register of Wetherhal, p. 121. * The description (Harl. MS. 434, f. 161) runs as follows: — ““Unam bovatam terre ad mensuram Rode viginti pedes continentis . . . cum tofto et crofto integro et toto prato ad illam bovatam terre . . . pertinentibus . . . videlicet, in crofto duas acras et dimidiam rodam et quatuordecim perticatas apud biggehoue versus occidentem unam acram et unam rodam et quatuor perticatas ibidem versus orientem duas rodas et dimidiam apud thuahouel unam acram sub Wartheholis unam acram et unam rodam et vigintinovem perticatas apud routhelands unam rodam et tresdecim perticatas infra vias de Warthehol’ et Karliol duas acras et unam rodam et dimidiam et quinque perticatas apud heyberhe unam acram et viginti tres perticatas apud leuedibuthes dimidiam acram et quatuor perticatas ad Sandrig tres rodas et dimidiam rodam et octo perticatas ad hildirflath unam acram et unam rodam et dimidiam rodam et quatuordecim perticatas in cultura a molendino versus aquilonem in quinta et sexta selione versus orientem duas rodas et dimidiam et sexdecim perticatas.”’ 3 Ibid., f. 1615. The description runs as follows: — “In crofto eiusdem domus tres rodas et octodecim perticatas In hagwrinron cum prato ibi iacente quinque rodas et unam perticatam 240 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS prove that the parcels of each group were segregated, it suggests that such may have been the case. Other early terriers of the cartularies relate to groups of acres or fractional acres which are not designated as bovates or tenants’ holdings. ‘They incline, like the Tallantire terriers, to locate parcels in several furlongs which are not brought into relation with one another and are never grouped by fields. Hence they furnish little information, except to make clear that more or less scattered strips were the constituents of early Cumber- land fields and to emphasize the absence of a two- or three-field grouping. / At this point our evidence comes to an end. The nature of Cumberland open field has been ascertained only in its broader aspects; yet these are perhaps sufficient to determine certain affiliations. It has been pointed out that the field arrangements of Northumberland in the sixteenth century and at an earlier time manifested Scottish characteristics, though various descrip- tions concur with the map in disclosing other characteristics not Scottish. In particular did the size of the townships differ from what was usual across the border. Nor is it clear that the arable of a Northumberland township was ever divided sharply into infield and outfield, each tilled in the Scottish manner. On the contrary, a larger stretch of cultivable land was probably kept under more continuous tillage than in Scotland. The field sys- tem of the county seems, in short, to have had midland as well as Scottish aspects. Cumberland, on the other hand, appears to have inclined more to Celtic usages. In the first place, there nowhere occur in Cumberland sur- veys and terriers suggestions of a two- or three- or four-field grouping such as are often found, though not well substantiated, in Northumberland documents. If, by chance, mention is made in a Cumberland terrier of an East field, there is small likelihood of finding further reference to a West field or a Middle Ad Braidron unam acram et tres rodas et decem perticatas In thorfinesakyr unam acram et tres rodas et octodecim perticatas Ad bighou tres rodas una perticata minus Ad blaakepot unam rodam et triginta duas perticatas Super Banks unam acram et triginta perticatas Ad viam que ducit ad capellam Sancte Trinitatis tres rodas octodecim perticatas.” CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 241 field. It is not merely that the absence of an equal division of the acres of a holding among such fields leads to a distrust of the agrarian significance of the latter, as in Northumberland, but it seems clear that symmetrical fields seldom or never existed. Nor is the infrequent appearance of fields due to paucity of documents; for Cumberland surveys and terriers are not less numerous than those usually available from a midland county. Instead of adopting the midland arrangement, the acres of a holding seem even to have manifested a tendency to concen- trate within one part of the arable area of a township. If we have insufficient evidence to prove that this was usual, its occasional occurrence is none the less contributory to a disbelief in the extension of the midland system to the county. Apart from the intractability in Cumberland and probably in Northumberland, of the acres of a holding relative to a systematic field arrangement, we have from both counties positive proof of Scottish affiliations. Briefly stated, it is that, in both, portions of the waste were after the Scottish manner temporarily tilled and then allowed to revert to pasture. For Northumberland the evidence of this practice consists of certain descriptive state- ments, for Cumberland of inferences drawn from sixteenth- century surveys. But whether the Scottish division between compact outfield and infield was maintained in Northumberland there is reason to doubt. In Cumberland, on the contrary, it was perhaps more persistent, if one may judge from the phrases of the Fingland terrier.'_ Such a persistence, were we assured of it, would constitute a second point of difference between Cumberland and Scottish agrarian arrangements on the one hand and those of the midlands and Northumberland on the other. We are better informed, however, regarding a third dissimi- larity —that, namely, which inheres in the size of the townships. As has been pointed out, Northumberland townships were large, those of Cumberland small, as were also those of Scotland. Often the total area of these small townships was not more than one-fourth of what was usual in the midlands or in Northumber- 1 Cf. above, p. 232. 242 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS land. Whether, then, the size of township fields or the method of their tillage be considered, Cumberland appears more Celtic than any other county of England thus far examined. To the south, however, lies a stretch of territory in which the Celtic population long withstood the Anglo-Saxons, and in which, therefore, phenomena not unlike some of those already described in this chapter may be apparent. Lancashire SincE Lancashire was once joined with Cumberland in the old Celtic kingdom of Strathclyde, we shall expect to find in the two counties similar agrarian conditions. There should be discernible in Lancashire, as in Cumberland, few surviving open common fields in the eighteenth century, but at an earlier time a certain number of small ones in which the parcels of the tenants had no systematic midland arrangement. Slater found in Lancashire no common fields enclosed by act of parliament, although there are numerous acts affecting com- monable waste. The report submitted by John Holt to the Board of Agriculture in 1794 estimated that nearly one-half of the area of the county was waste — 508,000 acres out of 1,129,600. “There are,” he says, ‘ but few open or common fields at this time remaining; the inconvenience attending which, while they were in that state, has caused great exertions to accomplish a division, in order that every individual might cultivate his own lands according to his own method; and that the lots of a few acres, in many places divided into small portions, and again separated at different distances, might be brought together into one point. ... The inclosures or fields are in general very small, so much so as to cause great loss of ground from their number and the space occupied by hedges, banks and ditches. ”’ ? All this bespeaks piecemeal enclosure of common fields, perhaps long continued. . 1 English Peasantry, p. 255. ; 2 General View of the Agriculture of the County of Lancashire (London, 1794), PP. 49, 52. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 243 A concrete illustration of the early prevalence of enclosures is at hand in a detailed survey of the large manor of Rochdale, made in 1626.' This estate, situated in the southeastern part of the county, included some twenty-four hamlets and had an area of 41,828 acres. Somewhat more than one-fourth of the manor remained in open common waste at the time of the sur- vey, but the remainder lay almost entirely in closes. At times there were parcels of pasture which, being newly divided, were not yet enclosed.2 Intermixed arable strips were nowhere to be found. Thus, to a large tract of land on the edge of the moors —a tract which may never, to be sure, have had much open- field arable — the eighteenth-century description was applicable a hundred and fifty years earlier. There is, however, no difficulty in finding traces of open common arable in the seventeenth century. The rental of the houses and lands of Edward Moore at Liverpool, drawn up in 1667-68 and unconsciously offering a striking comment on the later development of that port, frequently attaches to the houses “several lands [e.g., ten] in the field.” Elsewhere it is the “town field,’ but we get no further detail.’ An instructive document illustrative of early seventeenth- century conditions in Lancashire is an account, drawn up in 1616, of the “ Appropriate Parsonages or Rectories of Black- bourne and Whaley . . . possessions and Heriditaments belonging to the Archbishopricke of Canterburie.” 4 Since there belonged “unto the said Rectory the Moietie of the Lordship of Black- bourne,” the townships included in the enumeration extended over an area of at least 200 square miles in the northeastern part of the county.® With one exception the land described in 1 Henry Fishwick, Survey of the Manor of Rochdale (Chetham Soc., 1913), pp. Xlll, XV. 2 Thid., 240, Whitworth hamlet: “A parcel of pasture . . . lying open amongst the rest of the Copyholders in the Trough containing statute [measure], Io acres, 3 roods.”” Areas held by other copyholders “ in the Trough ”’ are given. 3 Thomas Heywood, The Moore Rental (Chetham Soc., 1847), pp. 19, 23, et passim. 4 Exch. K. R., M. B. 40, ff. 24-46. 5 The townships were Samelsbury, Overdale, Walton, Downham, Church, Has- lingden, Burnley, Colne, Clitheroe, besides Blackburn and Whalley. 244 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS each township lay in closes, often many in number. The excep- tion was the township of Altham in the parish of Whalley, where the glebe lands comprised a long list of open-field selions.!. A note 1 Exch. K. R., M. B. 40, ff. 40 sg. The description runs as follows: — “ Now followeth ye parsonage Gleabe of Whaley lying within ye towneship of Alvetham alias Altham, viz: Item . . . in a feild of the Eyes toward Simonston certaine lands called Calved Eyes with a parcell betwene the divisions of the waters Item in the same Eyes towards Alvetham alias Altham, certaine lands called little Eyes neere the Milldam . . . and so descending into Calder Item at a place called the Bronckhouses a Mesuage which sometimes Adam of Aspden held Item there nere the greene gate fower Selions butting upon the way Item in the same feild in a certaine place called the farthings fower selions Item in the same feild a selion like to a headland nere the house which sometime John of Boncke held ; Item nere the said mesuage six selions butting upon the said messuage Item in the same feild two selions Item in the Mitthom twoo selions nere the syke with meadou in both the ends Item in the west parte of Nether East feild a Selion with a geron towards the west Item in the same feild six selions iacentes divisim Item in the Over east field xi selions iacentes divisim Item in the feild of Hoghton in the Blackcroft xviii selions iacentes divisim amongst percells of the oxegangs Item in the same feild six Butts iacentes divisim Item in the same feild of Hoghton at the Rishy flatt thirteene selions iacentes divisim Item in the same field ten selions iacentes simul which is called the Barriers Item in a certaine feild called the Hanflatt contayning in length xxxvii selions and on the other side ix selions with a way lying to the said feild toward the wood Item in the same field of Hoghton the Walllands conteyning xi selions and in another place in the same feild xxi selions Item in the feild above the Hall a mesuage which is called Hannehousteed and four selions extending themselves from the said mesuage to the Barne of the Mannor of Altham Item a certaine place called Hannecroft in the same feild conteyning six Butts Item on the west parte of the Mannour a certaine Messuage which Roger de Ornesden sometime held with all Selions abutting upon the said Mesuage and two selions whose ends are extended neere the said Messuage Item in the feild of Milnecroft two Selions iacentes divisim Item in the feild of Lordshall six Selions iacentes divisim Item in the feild of Tonnested twenty-one Selions iacentes divisim Item there at the Hartstalgreve and Firme ten Selions iacentes divisim Item in the Nethertonnsted xi selions iacentes divisim Item in the West Eyes xvii selions with three Butts and a geron Item beyond the water towards Reved five selions iacentes divisim Item a certaine Mesuage on the east part of the Mesuage with the priests house Item in the Brichholme a certain Croft Item a certaine place neere the Manner gate for a Tyth barne Item in the greate meadow under the Lords hill in the East part of the said meadow in breadth lxiii feete lying together whose longitude is extended from the Lords hill to the Hay of the Kerre Item in the middle of the same feild from a part of the old Cawsey xxvii feet in latitude and from the other part of the said Cawsey xviii feet in latitude extending itself in longitude as before Item further in the same feild toward the west two Selions Item in the same meadow toward the Meneeage the moytie of all that parcell called the Meneeage dividing it equally with the Lord alternis vicibus CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 245 at the end of the list records that certain of the field names were ancient and that enclosure had recently been in progress.t As to the field system which underlay this elaborate descrip- tion only tentative conclusions can be drawn. Since four mes- suages appear, it is possible that three or four holdings were thrown together. If the selions described between the first and second messuages belonged to one holding, they lay very largely in ‘‘ the field of Hoghton.” Here were 59 selions and 6 butts, whereas to none of the other five fields in this group were assigned more than 11 selions, Hanflatt being probably a close. This im- plies considerable segregation. After passing the second mes- suage new fields appear, none of them containing very many selions, save Tonnested and Nethertonnsted with 21 and 11, and West Eyes with 17. If, on the other hand, the messuage succession has no significance and parcels in the same field belonging to different messuages are thrown together, we can only say about the field system that it seems to have been entirely irregular. While Altham yields only this terrier, Warton situated to the west on the coast boasts a complete survey of 7 James I.2 En- closed land is here carefully distinguished from common field, the latter being said to lie ‘in communibus campis,” or “ in Warton field,” or “in le Townefield.”’ Although an occasional parcel of common- meadow is singled out for specific location, this almost never happens to the arable, except to eight parcels “in le Bonetowne’”’ and four “super le towne.” The field system cannot therefore be ascertained, and it only remains to Item in the furthest part of the said meadow which goeth towards the Milne croft in the East part two selions lying neere the Lords hill with a certaine round parcell of the same meadow nere the hedge of the same Selions Item in the west parte of the end of the said meadow a gereon and beneath that two Selions Item at the Hartalstall greve ten Selions Item all the meadow of Altham in Symonston Eighes with all the errable there.” 1 “Item the said Jurors do further find present and say that the names of the feilds aforementioned were the auncient names of the said feilds, but time hath worne out those names and given them new names onely some of the auncient names remaine at this day, viz: the Hoghtons, the Kerre, the Mitthom. Which Hogh- tons were of late yeares divided into divers closes, and so the ancient longitude and latitude of them doth not in any one feild continue at this day.” 2 Land Rev., M. B. 220, ff. 27-58. 246 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS determine the area of the open field relative to the area enclosed. The five freeholders, who controlled 29 cottages and gardens had, it appears, 15 enclosed acres, while, the land attached to the forty-four customary messuages amounted to about 270 enclosed acres (mainly small parcels of pasture) and about 287 acres of common field, of which at least 107 acres were common meadow. Of open-field arable there were, therefore, not more than 180 acres, or about one-fourth of the cultivated land of the township. No rights of pasturage over the arable are mentioned, most tenants having “ cattle gates ” in Lyndeth Marsh or in le Inges, and sometimes common pasture for sheep on Warton Crag and Warton Marsh. For two Lancashire townships there are fifteenth-century terriers testifying to the existence of open arable fields! One recites a grant to Penwortham priory of lands at Farrington, a hamlet southeast of Preston. By it were transferred, along with a messuage, 73 and 11 acres of arable. Of the 73 acres, 5 were in a field which bore the name of the adjacent hamlet of Clayton (im quodam campo vocato Claghtonfelde), and the rest in three parcels lay respectively in Brockforlong, Stainfeld- more, and “ ex parte boreali le Heghgate.” The 11 acres lay, we know not how divided, “in Longestainfeld, Brokeforlong, Shortstainfeld, et le Orchards, et Catcroft medowe.”? To judge from this grant, the subdivisions of Farrington field were few in number, scarcely more than a half-dozen. A like sim- plicity of field division is apparent in the other terrier, despite its greater length. This specifies the parcels which were sub- tracted from three bovates and three acres of arable, and from 1 Tt would seem at first sight as if there were useful information in a long fifteenth- century survey of the lands of Sir Peter Legh at Warrington near the mouth of the Mersey, published by the Chetham Society in 1849 (William Beamont, Warrington in 1465). Apart from the messuages, gardens, and certain acres “‘in campo vocato Hollay,’’ much of the land described lay “ in magno campo vocato Arpeley,” or in some part of it, as Le Wroe or Wetakyrs. A glance at the Warrington of today, however, shows that the reference is undoubtedly to the large tract of meadow land almost encircled by the Mersey and still called Arpsley meadows. We can learn little about field systems from intermixed acres of common meadow. 2 W. A. Hulton, Documents relating to the Priory of Penwortham (Chetham Soc., 1853), p. 67 (22 Hen. VII). CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 247 ten acres of meadow, at Bolron near Lancaster.!. Except for the 13 acres in the last three parcels, the arable lay in four parts of the field. At Bolronbroke and Bolrondale were 1} acres in four parcels, in or under the Withins 23 acres in four parcels, “super Bambrest ” 43 acres in four parcels, and in the Oldefalde 13 acres apparently together. Locations like these at Farring- ton and Bolron do not adapt themselves to a three-field arrange- ment. They suggest rather small hamlet fields subdivided into a few areas somewhat like midland furlongs. Throughout these furlongs the parcels of a tenant were scattered irregularly. These characteristics are reproduced and emphasized in several thirteenth-century terriers referring chiefly to townships situated on the coastal plain between Preston and Lancaster. For the most part they record grants to Cockersand abbey, grants that seldom convey so much as ten acres of open-field arable, therein differing from the charters of a midland cartulary, which nearly always include some long specifications. In the brief Cocker- sand transfers it is possible, none the less, to discover in a measure the relative positions of the parcels conveyed. Typical in all respects is the charter relative to a messuage, garden, and 52 acres of arable at Sowerby.” Not only were the acres granted 1 William Farrer, Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey (Chetham Soc., 3 vols. in 7 pts., 1898-1909), iii. pt. i. 819-820. The specifications run as follows: — ‘‘Robertus . . . recuperavit seisinam suam .. . de medietate unius acrae terrae iacente ex utraque parte de Bolronbroke . . ac de una roda terrae in Bolrondale iacente inter terram , . . et de una alia roda terrae in Bolrondale per se necnon de medietate unius acrae terrae cum uno tofto cum suis pertinentibus in Bol- rondale ac de tribus rodis terrae jacentibus subtus le Withins in Aldlancastre ed de una alia roda in eadem per se ac de tribus rodis terrae in eadem per se et de aliis tribus rodis terrae in eadem per se Et etiam de quinque rodis terrae in le Oldefalde cum sirposis clausuris et de una acra terrae super Bambrist iuxta le Lone in Scotforde cum quodam prato .. . scilicet, Morehous, continente duas acras et dimidiam Et similiter de duabus acris et medietate unius [acrae] terrae iacentibus super Bambrest per se ac de tribus rodis terrae super Bambrest per se ac de una roda terrae et prati super Bambrest Ac etiam de tribus rodis terrae in le Riddyng in Scotford ac de tribus rodis terrae iuxta le Standandstone et de una roda terrae super le Clyff. ...” 2 Ibid., i. pt. ii. 244 (c. 1230-1268). The arable comprised: — “Tres per[tiJcatas in orientali parte de Stirap super aquam de Broc et unam dimidiam acram in occidentali parte de Stirap iuxta vadum de Quitakedich 248 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS few in number, but, as the locations show, they were not widely separated; all the parcels except the last were connected in one way or another with Stirap, Quitakedich, and the “ aqua de Broc,” which three in turn were near one another. The segregation which has been noted in Cumberland reappears. It can also be traced to some extent at Preston in the eight parcels which were transferred along with a burgage tenement and the third part of a toft.!. Apart from the meadow, an assart, and a half-acre near the garden, the arable lay largely in Siclingmor and Platfordale, with something in Aldefeld and at Sewallesike; but how these areas were related we do not discover. Traces of segregation are discernible, once more, in one of the longest charters of the cartulary. From it we learn that the ten acres which the abbey acquired at Newton comprised many parcels, some of them described as selions.? Since 54 acres and more than half of the selions lay in Otemaste and Wodebinde furlongs, these two divisions of the open field contained more than three-fourths of the ten acres conveyed. In fact, one of them alone comprised about five acres, a predominance which would not be met with in a normal midland terrier. Perhaps these descriptions may suffice to show that the open fields of Lancashire had characteristics similar to those of et unam acram et dimidiam in alia divisa . . . sequendo Quitakedich . . . ad selliones de Stirap... et duas acras terrae in alia divisa . . . sequendo . . . usque aquam de Broc .. . et unam dimidiam acram in alia divisa super terram de Leye.” 1 Farrer, Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey, iii. pt. i. 217 (c. 1230-1255). The parcels are described as follows: — “Totam terram in assarto meo... et quatuor partes terrae super Siclingmor [three parcels, each between the lands of other men] et unam dimidiam acram super Aldefeld . . . et tres per[tiJcatas terrae in Platfordale .. . et unam dimidiam acram in Platfordale .. . et dimidiam acram . . . iuxta orreum meum et totam terram meam ex utraque parte de Sewallesike et totum pratum meum inter pratum Adae albi et commune Karrum.” 2 [bid., 175 (1262-1268). Except when otherwise specified, the following areas are in acres: — “ Super Otemaste furlong,” 3, 4, 1, 1, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3 selions “ super Wodebinde furlong,”’ 1, 1, 4 half-selions “in superiori parte viae quae ducit ad Singilton,” 5 half-selions “in inferiori parte viae de Singilton,” 2 ‘‘ Tungas ” “ super le holderthe,” 1 butt, 2 half-selions, 4 selion “super Karfurlong,”’ 2 ‘‘ Tungas.” CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 249 Cumberland. By the eighteenth century they had, like the fields to the north, become largely enclosed, though certain glebe terriers of the seventeenth century indicate that the intermixture of parcels persisted in a few localities and on a considerable scale. In these and in earlier terriers of the fifteenth and thirteenth cen- turies the nature of the open fields becomes apparent. Nowhere were the parcels grouped systematically in the midland manner. On the contrary, they are described as lying irregularly, in areas variously named and sometimes called furlongs, while not in- frequently they were segregated. Regarding the method em- ployed in tilling the open fields no information is at hand. Since such characteristics as we know about, however, are manifesta- tions of Celtic runrig, it seems permissible to join Lancashire with Cumberland, and assign both counties to the region within which English agriculture was affected by Celtic custom. Cheshire Or the counties on the Welsh border, Cheshire is most closely joined with that part of Wales to which considerable attention has been given. Since Chester is only some ten miles down the valley of the Dee from Wrexham, we shall expect to find round about this county town common fields not unlike those of eastern Denbighshire. Late documents, however, do not tell much of common arable fields in Cheshire. The reporter to the Board of Agriculture in 1794 estimated that they probably did not amount to 1000 acres in a county of 676,000 acres, nine-tenths of which was improved land.!. Descriptions of all the tenants’ holdings at Davenham and Great Budworth in 1650 assure us that nothing but closes were to be found.2. A great survey of Macclesfield manor and forest made in g James I gives minute details for some sixteen townships; * but throughout the entire survey there is scarcely 1 Thomas Wedge, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Cheshire, London, 1794. 2 Parliamentary Surveys, Cheshire, No. 11. 3 Land Rev., M. B. 200, f. 239 (the survey comprises folios 147-357). A typical holding is described as follows: — “ Jasper Worth, esquire, claymeth to hold to him and his heyres by copie of court roll... Item One other tenement in the tenure of John Latham, viz: 250 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS a suggestion of open common field, except perhaps in the mention of a few unusual “ parcells’”’ of arable at Bollington.’ Apart from these, the entire manor lay in small closes, containing for the most part from one to two acres and consisting largely of arable. None the less, there is seventeenth-century evidence that open common fields existed in Cheshire. In 1649 the messuages and lands of the dean and chapter at Chester were surveyed. After an enumeration of several closes “ situate without Northgate,” the account describes a series of “ parcells,” mainly arable and usually of from one to two acres in extent. Though most of these are not said to be in open field, a few at the beginning of the list are so described: ‘‘ In Chester Town Feild, One parcell of Ground, called Long hedge Acre... is in Estimacion 2 acres. .. . One parcell of ground more in Chester Town Field, near Dee Bank, called Grange Acre... [is] in Estimacion I acre, 2 roods.... One parcell of Arrable ground in the Lower Town Feild ... commonly caled Burtons Acre... containeth by Estimacion 2 acres.” ? At least we are assured of the continued existence at Chester, in the middle of the seven- teenth century, of a “‘ town field’ the constituents of which were small parcels of arable. Not much more informing is an account of the “ rectory lands ” at Bowdon, dated 1654. This glebe was then leased to eight under-tenants, each with a messuage, though two were cot- One dwelling howse and the outhowses thereunto belonginge One close Arr[able] called the Layefield by estimation................ 3 acres One close called the Meadow place by estimation ................... BS One other Arrfable] called the Hugh close by estimation ............. I acre One other called the good crofte by estimation ..................... rf One other called the Goosie Meadowe by estimation ................ r-~ One other Arr[able] called the Symentley Knowle by estimation....... 3 acres One other Arr[able] called Symentley by estimation ................. I acre One other called the litle Meadow by estimation .................. eS One other Arr[able] called the Calfe crofts by estimation ............. 3 acres One other Arr[able] called the Bancks by estimation ................ 3. ? One holding, for instance (Land Rev., M. B. 200, f. 321), includes: — “One parcell of Arrable in the towne field ................ 1} roods one other parcell of Arrable in the Neather or towne field . 49 yards by 5 yards one other parcell of Arrable called the Butt in Page Croft. 20 “ # Ay hie * Henry Fishwick, Lancashire and Cheshire Church Surveys (Lanc. and Chesh. Rec. Soc., 1879), pp. 226-227. CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND 251 tagers. The six held for the most part a series of closes, but four had also “lands” or strips lying intermixed in places called Eyebrookes, Church field, and Hall field.!. These strips formed less than one-third of each leasehold, the ratios in acres being 21 to 754, 63 to 853, 12 to 385, 10 to 33%. The Eyebrookes was a close, and may have been a close of glebe shared by the four tenants. Since Hall field and Church field were situated “ upon the Downes,” they suggest areas recently improved and sub- divided. Such constituents do not go to the making of normal open arable fields. Less vague is a survey of 1650 relative to the manor of Hand- bridge, just outside Chester.2, Twenty-two of the tenants had each a messuage, a garden (never larger than half an acre), and common of pasture in Saltney Marsh. In addition, each had from one to six “‘ lounds in the Towne feild.” Always there were from one to three “ lounds ” in “‘ Longefeild in the Towne- feild,” and eleven tenants had also a strip or two apiece “ at the lower ende of the Bottom in the Town feild.” There were besides two parcels ‘‘ within the Gullett in the Townfeild,” four at ‘ Lowhill in the Townefields,”’ and two at Crossflatts. At times the “‘lound ” is said to have contained one acre, and on this basis the total area of all of them would have been about sixty acres. At length we have discovered a town field, small, to be sure, but one which had its subdivisions and one in which many tenants had intermixed parcels. In sixteenth-century terriers similar open fields are discernible in the same neighborhood. At Chester, in 2 Edward VI, the college of St. John the Baptist had several tenants, the holdings 1 Fishwick, Lancashire and Cheshire Church Surveys, pp. 176-184. The items are as follows: — ““ Nyne lands in the Close called the Eye brookes, Conteyneing by estimacion 8 acres. .. . Seaven Lands in the Churchfeild and eight lands in the Hall hill, conteyneing by estimacion 13 acres... . Two lands and one head land in a Close Called the Eyebrookes, by estimacion 2 acres, 2roods.... Three lands in the Church-feild and one land in the Hall feild, both upon the Downes, by estimacion 4 acres. .. . Seaven lands in the Eyebrookes, by estimacion 6 acres. One land in the long acres, by estimacion 1 acre... . Two lands, two headlands in the Churchfeild, and three lands in the Hall feild or hall hill, by estimacion 5 acres. . . . Seaven lands. in the Eye brookes, by estimacion 5 acres, 2 roods. ... Fower lands in the Church feild, with a small Cottage, by estimacion 4 acres, 2 roods.’’ 2 Parliamentary Surveys, Cheshire, No. 13 A. 252 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS of some twenty of whom included selions in different fields near the city.!. These selions, which are also called riggs or lands (terre), are never rated in acres; they even at times serve as units of measure for the butts. No tenant had more than eleven and one-half of them, the usual holding being five. Since the selion probably contained not more than an acre, the average share in the common field did not exceed five acres and the total extent of common arable cannot have been great. Of the three fields named, one is simply the field of Chester; Spyttel field and Banke field might seem to be subdivisions of this, were it not that in certain instances each is made coérdinate with it. Usually the selions of a holding lay in a single field. Only four times are they assigned to two fields, and only once to three, the division of acres in the last case being unequal (2, 23, 4). There is, therefore, no reason for concluding that a three-field system was known to the common field or fields of Chester in the middle of the sixteenth century. A terrier, contemporary with this from Chester and declaring itself a “‘ bylle of the lands of Sir phylyppe Egertons,”’ describes a holding in Tilston, a parish only about three miles across the Dee from the Denbighshire open fields of Issacoed and Pickhill. Most of the butts are assigned to the town field of Horton, itself one of the hamlets of the parish of Tilston;? but whether 1 Rents. and Survs., Portf. 6/24, ff. 6-9. The list is as follows, separation by semicolons indicating different holdings: — “In communi campo Cestrie or in campo { unum pratum; iii seliones; iii seliones; Restie: 2 tian hes b.wt setae ie ( iv seliones; viii seliones; iii seliones vi terre arabiles in orientali parte; v seliones; Is seliones et dimidia; vi terre arabiles in orientali parte; v seliones iv seliones; quinque butts continentes ii sel- iones et dimidiam; iv seliones; quinque butts continentes ii seliones et dimidiam (i seliones et iiii seliones; iii seliones et ii in’ Spyttelieldejet xo eee ern sect 4 seliones; ii seliones et iiii seliones et ii In Chesterfelde:: n.0b0ec en Sed sick See l seliones terre et dimidia cum uno hadlonde in Bankefeld Pn Battkelelde cc cow oer oe ate ore he seliones et ii seliones; i selio et dimidia In Chesterfelde 92.2), SU cc ete oe et iii seliones.” 2 Rents. and Survs., Portf. 1/4, No.9. The specifications run as follows: — ““Tn the fylde of humfre hansons there be thow buttys .. . In the same fylde be thow . . . [elsewhere] Another butte . . a hadlant lyeng in horton towne fylde . . . In the same fylde .. four... CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND . 253 there was any grouping of butts within this field we do not learn. Sixteenth-century arrangements at Tilston and at Chester thus seem to have been like those of the Denbighshire hamlets round Wrexham.! Selions in the possession of any tenant were few —seldom more than a half-dozen—and were located without any indication of grouping by fields. Often the entire open arable area was undifferentiated, being merely assigned to a hamlet. Such a ‘‘town field” must have been small and situated near the hamlet or village. Though one cannot in Cheshire, as in Denbighshire, compare total areas of townships with the areas of their open fields, the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century surveys of the former county, so far as they are extant, show fully as much enclosure as do those of the latter. In the char- acter and extent of its open field the Dee valley was at that time a unit. Thirteenth-century testimony regarding unenclosed fields in this part of Cheshire is not wanting. It is to be found largely in the cartulary of St. Werburgh, written soon after 1300,” and it accords with the sixteenth-century evidence. To sharpen our conception of a somewhat puzzling field system, it may be well to summarize and illustrate the features that appear in the charters. The grants were usually made in selions, “ lands,” or butts, the areas of which were not estimated in acres,’ a procedure ’) In the same fylde . . . the clere pyett’ ” In the same fylde Another butt .. . In the same fylde other thow . . . Another in the same fylde A butt lyeing in a fylde called the newe close . . . a hadland another butt .. . another butt lyeing in a fylde called unerbroke . . . other thow butt’ lyeng in a fylde called the longe fylde . . . in the same fylde . . . a hadland . . . a roughst.” 1 Cf. above, pp. 179-182. 2 Harl. MS. 2062. 3 Cf. Add. Chars. 50008, 50040, 50304, cited below. In one instance, however, a lay transaction of 1322 refers to ten acres in Aston [iuxta Mondrum], which lay “in le quytenacres, le oldefeld, Ruycedyche, Aldecrofte et in le Wallefeld ” (Add. Char. 49805). Once also Abbot Simon of St. Werburgh exchanged two messuages, two crofts, two lands, and two butts in “‘le hedfeld” for “ iii acras et i rodam iacentes inter landas suas et unum assartum continens v acras et unam rodam ”’ (Harl. MS. 2062, f. 22b). 254 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS that emphasizes the importance of the selion as an agrarian unit. Strips described in this way were often located by furlongs, as in a midland terrier. A specification of ten of them at Claverton in the time of Edward I illustrates both characteristics.!. Some selions lay in furlongs, others in fields, while still others, after a fashions prevalent in northwestern England, lay in areas named “ Ulvesdale ” and the “ croft of Claverton.” Another feature of thirteenth-century Cheshire charters, more striking than either of those just mentioned, becomes apparent in a description of lands transferred at Newton-near-Chester. Twenty-one and one-half selions “‘ in campis eiusdem villae ”’ are characterized as follows: — “Tres seliones que vocantur le Cleylondes tres seliones que vocantur le styweylondes duas seliones que vocantur le Schouelebradlondes unam selionem que vocatur le longhevedlond dimidiam selionem que vocatur le Cleyhalflond unam selionem que vocatur le Brocstanlond unam selionem que vocatur le Joustynghevedlond unam selionem que vocatur le Cleyhevedlond unam dimidiam landam Iacentem iuxta eandem Cleyheved- lond duas seliones que vocantur le Putlondes duas seliones que vocantur le Bradelakelondes et tres dimidias seliones in Fregrene unam selionem que vocatur le styweylond unam selionem que vocatur Edmundislond unam selionem que vocatur le Schoterdichehevedlond 1 Add. Char. 50008. _ The specification runs as follows: — “ Decim seliones terre iacentes in campis de Claverton, viz: duas dimidias seyliones In Ulvesdale et unam seylionem iacentem super le stonihulle et unam seylionem iacentem super le Lowe et unam seylionem extra le Lowe Iacentem in Brerifurlong et unam seylionem Iacentem in crofto de Claverton et duas seyliones Iacentes in le Cruftinge et duas dimidias seliones Iacentes in le Wythines et duas dimidias seliones Iacentes supra le Leefeld iuxta campum de Ekleston et unam dimidiam seylonem Iacentem In Longefurlong et unam dimidiam seylonem Iacentem iuxta Swartingesfeld.” tt ie CELTIC SYSTEM IN ENGLAND - 255 et totam illam terram que vocatur le Bruches . . . inter ferram 7. . Although, according to a long survey, the manor of Eltham consisted largely of closes, there are ref- erences to an East field in which seven tenants still held parcels containing from 4 acre to 2 acres each.® 1 Land Rev., M. B. 196, 6 Jas. I. The exceptional items tell us, for example, that at Faversham were 8 acres of arable “in communi campo vocato le Abbey wrongs,” and at Shoreham 13 acres of arable “ in communi campo vocato Shorham hill ” (ff. 116, 1170). 2 Stowe MS. 858, 6 Jas. I. There is, however, mention of one acre and ten poles “in communi campo vocato Ashley field ” (f. 39). 4 Tbid., maps 1 (Horsham), 4 (Newington). 5 Exch. K. R., M. B. 40, f. 7 (1616). 6 Exch. K. R., M. B. 44, ff. 40b-50b (1605). Reduced Plan of an Estate of All Souls College, Oxford, lying in Newington and Upchurch, Kent. Heirs of Knight Little Burbrooke 5-0-30 Heirs of Norden ~ Alt Souls “ta = Wm. Cobbam , 25-2-0 Little Boxstead 43-20 Robt. Bowden Mr. Wardacre 1593. Robt. Bowden v= Great Burbrooke Robt. Liford 10-3-34 Helrs of Date Thos. Hardole William Winge Robt. Liford = Marten College Parsonage Field Robt. Lif 6-3-18 na Marten College Robt. Liford Robt. Bowden Clement Milway vied = Wm. Sowell Clement Milway -B-20/ Heirs of 2 Marten College hoy 2 Map XII 274 THE KENTISH SYSTEM 275 Full and convincing testimony to the existence of open-field arable in Kent appears in certain early seventeenth-century surveys relating to St. Margaret at Cliffe, Guston, Deal, and Sutton, all situated in the southeastern part of the county. A terrier of the glebe of St. Margaret at Cliffe, dated 1645, de- scribes it as lying in 31 furlongs, in each of which were from two to five small parcels, each parcel lying between the lands of other proprietors.!_ In Limvine furlong, for example, were four separate strips of glebe containing respectively 1 acre and 22 perches, 3 roods and ro perches, 1 rood and 3 perches, 13 acres and 15 perches. An earlier account of 1616 explains that the same glebe “ lyeth in severall Shotts or furlongs of land . . . lying intermixed with the lands of the Tenants of the mannor of Reach.” ? Elsewhere we learn that the “‘ manor of Reach doth consist of demesnes and services and lyeth in the parish of St. Margaretts at Cliffe neere Dover. . . . The demesnes are of three sorts — Inclosed Lands, Outlands or Downe Lands, and Commons. ... These open fields and downe do incompasse the inclosed lands and mansion house. . . .”’* Clearly the so-called ‘‘ outlands ”’ con- sisted of intermixed arable strips lying in open field. In 1616 the demesne lands of the manor of Guston near Dover were of “‘ two sortes, Inclosed or lying in parcells in open fielde. The inclosed lands some ly contiguously one to another and the rest lye severed amongst other mens lands.’’ The contiguous en- closed demesne comprised 96 acres; the severed but enclosed, 162 acres; the unenclosed, 38 acres in 18 parcels. Of the tenants’ holdings 54 acres were enclosed (whether in contiguous parcels is not stated) and 63 acres lay in 72 parcels in open field, the open fields bearing such names as the Chequer End, the Butts, Church field, and ‘‘ Le Shott sive Furlong iuxta Banke.”’* In contrast with this estate, another ‘‘ reputed” manor called Frith in the same parish was “onely in Demesne ... . and the whole de- mesne lands lye all together in an oblique lyne and no man hath any lands intermixed with the lands of the same manour.” ° 1 Rents. and Survs., Portf. 9/55. 2 Exch. K: R., M. B. 40, f. 47. 3 Tbid., f. 6 (1616). 4 Ibid, ff. 2 sq. 5 Ibid., f. 14. 276 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Full detail for all tenants’ holdings is given in the survey of the manor of Dale, or Court Ashe, in the parish of Deal.'' These lay almost entirely in open field. The first tenant had 563 acres in 23 parcels lying in 16 fields,® the second 18 acres in 20 parcels in 13 fields, the fourth 253 acres in 18 parcels in 14 fields, and so on. Typical among the field names were Scotten Tyght, Le Chequer, Long Tyght, Woo furlong, West furlong super le Downe, Keetwheet, Goldfrid, and Upland. In the neighboring township of Sutton, the archbishop of Canterbury’s land consisted both of parcels in enclosed fields lying among other men’s lands and of parcels in open fields. The open fields were named Pising field, Barley Downe, Chequer end, the Butts, the North end, and the East hill. In them rent-paying tenants also had parcels.® These four parishes, St. Margaret, Guston, Deal, and Sutton, all lie in the high down-lands of southeastern Kent, downs which today are still largely open. The surveys are relatively late, dating from the early seventeenth century. An apparently reasonable inference, then, would be that we are here dealing with stretches of common land somewhat recently improvedand distrib- uted with an attempt at equity among the several tenants. Yet why subdivide so minutely and separate so persistently ? The glebe in Limvine furlong at St. Margaret might as well have been one four-acre parcel as four smaller ones, and an eighteenth- century division of a common would have made it such. The actual situation in the survey bespeaks the type of mind which subdivided the fields of the midlands, and suggests that the ar- rangement in Kent was not altogether recent when the surveys were made. This inference is not without the support of earlier documents. In 4 Richard II, Thomas Menesse of Dale (in the parish of Deal) granted land as follows: — In Dale: “ una roda terre iacet in campo vocato longetheghe tres rode iacent in loco vocato Dodeham 1 Exch. K. R., M. B. 40, ff. 8-11, 14 Jas. I. 2 One parcel contained 18 acres, one 53; the others were small. 3 Exch. K. R., M. B. 40, ff. 1-2 (1616). THE KENTISH SYSTEM 277 una roda et dimidia atte Berwhe una roda et dimidia iacent in campo vocato Dode- ham.”’ In Sholdon: ‘ una roda et dimidia iacent in loco vocato Kete- wode tres rode et dimidia iacent particulariter in campo vocato Scholdonesfeld una acra et una roda iacent in duabus parcellis apud lyden et predicta pastura pro quatuor vaccis lacet in marisco vocato Collosschepemerch. . . .”! Since the field names at Dale also occur in the survey of 14 James I as Long Tyght, Dodham, and Beere Tyght, the conditions of the seventeenth century seem to be carried back to the fourteenth. It is desirable, however, to secure testimony from parts of Kent which do not consist mainly of downs. Ina hand of Henry VIII -is written a survey of Sutton at Hone, one of the archbishop’s manors in the northwestern part of the county, some twenty miles east of London and five miles from the Thames.? The demesne, which comprised 642 acres, was enclosed, but of the 424 acres held by the freehold tenants at least 93 lay intermixed in 49 par- cels in a half-dozen fields. These fields bore the names Church Down, Southfeld, Northfeld, Battesdene, Bradfeld, Jordanes Croft. Each of the last three was shared by only two tenants, but elsewhere the subdivision was more complex. Southfeld was divided among five tenants holding respectively in acres 24 in 3 parcels, 62 in 2 parcels, 4} in 3 parcels, 14 in 2 parcels, 293 in 12 parcels (the 12 once having been attached to as many as four tenements); Northfeld had four tenants, holding 1, 3, $, 1; acres (the last in 3 parcels); Church Down fell to three tenants, whose acres numbered 23, 43 in 2 parcels, and 103 in g parcels. This distribution of a tenant’s parcels throughout fields appears quite as noticeably in an early sixteenth-century terrier of the lands of the heirs of William Hexstall, Kt., at Hoo St. Mary’s, a 1 Rawl. MS., B 335 (Reg. Hosp. St. Barth. Dovorie). 2 Treas. of Receipt, M. B. 172. 278 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS township between the mouth of the Thames and that of the Medway. ‘The 36 acres in question comprised 14 acres adjacent to the messuage, 3 acres of meadow in a neighboring township, and 24 small parcels in 18 places which look much like open field. Such descriptions from two northern townships suggest that there was at times in this part of the county considerable sub- division of certain holdings into small scattered parcels, and this aspect of the situation recurs in terriers and surveys of the four- teenth and fifteenth centuries. At Lewisham, near Greenwich, there is twice recorded the transfer of parcels that lay in the same field.2 At St. Mary’s Cray and Orpington, also near Greenwich, a conveyance of 4o acres, dated 26 Edward III, enumerates 11} acres lying in crofts, 11} acres “ in diversis parti- culis in campo vocato Burfeld,” and the remaining acres in ten other places, several of which are called campi. Two instructive charters relative to lands in or near Thanet are recorded in a 1 The distribution was as follows (Rents. and Survs., Portf. 1/4): — Acres Roods (Virgae) Day’s-works (= 3/5 Roods) Tri Leyietds «36 oes nninsab"s I ; 9 oe ROMIMCULE hat cco atalae sieiniete ate me me 15 SiTrimtes sess SIG .Saa% 14 : * Warishawe .'; sicn oa.sc.c6 2 I 5 SOEANeS Oye eo acct tet as I 8 © Sooradiss met f sweet 5 3 * POTION Ae Sout Gishie cei ae 4 fe 3 “i Ryfela vets 30305... ee I ui .. in 3 parcels S Barneteids . <.. a «#8. 3 fe. * WNewlonds .. c.ceccces 6 I 5 * de Shemie .:. .. so ies cera I 8 © PAN DONES episs oes ceerea cere I I .. in 2 parcels “"Mershefeld. 7) ..7 354.75 a + 84 ClO RS ELON ag io I a3 8} © PEGG Siac civka ev tee Bis 3 54 *iGreydonz s, 0.5. - 2288 $4 Pe 64 Skwalmeston.......... 2} I 6} in 3 parcels “‘ una pars iacet in campo vocato Chatefeld in uno loco et alia pars in eodem campo in alio loco et tertia pars iacet in campo qui vocatur hethefeld.”’ The second grant relates to “‘ una dimidia acra terre in campo qui vocatur Estclune . . . ate myddelheg cum tota terra quam habet in eodem campo Ate gore’ (Cott. MS., Otho B XIV, ff. 79, 81). 3 MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, Lib. B, f. 18. a THE KENTISH SYSTEM 279 fourteenth-century cartulary of St. Augustine’s abbey. In the parish of St. Peter’s 19} acres lay in g parcels, each located be- tween the lands of persons other than the owner (e. g., ‘‘ due acre iacent inter terram ... et terram...’’). At Chislett 4 acres in 3 parcels were similarly bounded, and other 4 in 4 parcels were assigned to different fields! Finally, an extended terrier of lands just outside of Canterbury, inserted in a fourteenth- century hand in another register of St. Augustine’s, describes six- teen furlongs which constituted the ‘‘ Tenura de Estber’ infra libertatem.” 2 In each furlong are parcels, usually of % acre to 4 acres, held by various tenants of the archbishop of Canterbury, the prior of Dover, and the abbot of St. Augustine’s. There can be little doubt here about the existence of intermixed parcels, or, considering the grouping by furlongs, about the existence of open fields. This fourteenth-century evidence finds its prototype in thir- teenth-century feet of fines. One of these, dated 21 Henry III, so describes four acres and four roods in Iwade, near the mouth of the Medway, as to give the impression that they were 1 Cott. MS., Claud. D X, ff. 1046, 1340, 1626. The last enumeration is as follows: — “‘ Due acre et una perticata iacent in campo qui vocatur Herste et tres perticate iacent in campo qui dicitur Meredale et tres perticate iacent in loco qui dicitur Calespotle et una perticata iacet in campo de teghe.” 2 Cott. MS., Faust. A I, ff. ro1b-106. The following is the allotment of the acres of the first six furlongs (A. A. = abbot of St. Augustine’s, P. D. = prior of Dover, A. C. = archbishop of Canterbury) : — In forlan- In forlan- In forlando In forlando In forlando go be- do by- qui dicitur qui dicitur bynorthe In south northe Sharp- Uxeaste- Lytildene Clyffor- eswey _ pesweye nesse crouche Drove lang Thomas Rotyng... 4A.A. oe Hele bie. eh. “es John de Gustone. . 3 IZA.A. 23P.D. Ii A.A. $+14+1P.D. 1P.D.,3 A.A. ; 2zA.A. 3 A.A. Laat ee $+7 A.C. Richard Polderne.. 4P.D. aa hee end 4past.A.C. 6past.,13 A.A. slate 8 past. P.D. 1 P.D. 2} past. P.D. vial ee Bs ri P.D. ZIP): John de Ber....... 2P.D. 2P.D. 23P.D. TAC: 32 A.A. 2+1P.D. bach THALC. .. 33 PD. 1+1 P.D. 3 past. P.D. i ove Quikeman de Ber.. 13A.C. ae pushes 2 past. A.C. Bor A.C. Simon Danyel.... 13A.C. Este INA Ce 4+3 P.D. $P.D. 14 P.D. ae brakes 58a raat 2 A.C. 2 A.C. Stephen Swanton. . bs ee Bak $42P.D. 2P.D. 3 A.A. AS ot 7A DE 280 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS scattered parcels.'. More instructive, however, is a fine of 20 Henry III from Barfreston, in eastern Kent, by which one-half of a carucate, excepting such land as was held in dower by two women, was transferred.2 Several characteristics of this fine are 1 “| unamacram et dimidiam in Sweynesam iuxta terram predicti Rogeri unam acram in Longeham iuxta terram Ricardi de Cheteneye unam acram in Clakslond iuxta terram predicti Wyberti dimidiam acram inter domum dicti Rogeri et domum predicti Roberti tres perticatas inter terram predicti Wyberti et Rogeri (Ped. Fin., case 96, No. 335). 2 Transfer of a messuage and a half-carucate, which comprised “unam acram et tres perticatas terre que iacent sub dicto mesuagio versus austrum ' et unam acram et unam perticatam que iacent inter terram ysaac de Sanwyc et terram Johannis Pent et quatuor acras et unam perticatam terre et dimidiam versus austrum in campo qui vocatur Bestedune et unam acram et quatuordecim sulcos qui iacent in medio campo qui vo- catur Bynorthewde et quattuor acras terre in medio pasture que vocatur northdune et unam acram et unam perticatam et quinque pedes terre in medio pasture que iacet versus Borialem partem de Haggedale et quinque perticatas et sex sulcos terre in campo sub Haggedale versus austrum et duas acras et unam perticatam et septem pedes terre in pastura versus occidentem et quattuor acras et quinque sulcos terre versus austrum in campo qui vo- catur Bisuthewode et tres acras et unam perticatam terre versus austrum in pastura de Litle- dune et tres acras et unam perticatam et dimidiam et duos sulcos terre in campo qui vocatur Bromueld quarum una medietas iacet sub pastura de Lit- ledun et altera medietas in medio campo de Bromfelde et unam acram terre que iacet in medio pasture sub bosco de Berefrestone versus occidentem et tres acras et unam perticatam et dimidiam et quattuor sulcos terre versus aquilonem in campo qui vocatur Langetighe et unam acram et unam perticatam et quattuor sulcos terre in campo qui iacet versus partem orientalem de Langetigh et unam acram et dimidiam perticatam terre versus austrum in campo qui vocatur Steuerlonde et unam acram et sex sulcos terre versus austrum in Suthfeld et duas perticatas et dimidiam et quattuor sulcos terre versus orientem de via que vocatur Drove et unam acram et tres perticatas et tres sulcos terre in medio campo qui iacet iuxta curiam versus austrum THE KENTISH SYSTEM 281 noteworthy. The parcels were not large, ranging from one to four acres and averaging about two acres. ‘Their areas are ac- curately estimated even to “ sulci’ (furrows). They lay for the most part “‘ in campo,” ‘“‘ in medio campi,” “ in medio culture ” (once), “‘ in medio pasture.’”’! The sulci occur in connection with campi, an intimation that the latter were arable; and, when in one instance it was necessary to estimate a small piece of pasture, this was done in “‘ pedes.’’ The campi can hardly have been con- terminous with the parcels, else why ‘‘in medio campi”’? To remove doubt, the fine shows that the 3} acres “in campo qui vocatur Bromueld ” were in two parcels, one of them being “ in medio campo de Bromfelde.”’ The parcels of arable, then, lay within larger fields, and, although these are not expressly said to have been unenclosed, they probably were so. The terrier establishes the existence in northern Kent, in the thirteenth century, of holdings constituted in part of small non-adjacent parcels of arable. The descriptive detail of the fine just quoted emphasizes what has already appeared in other terriers and surveys as a Kentish characteristic — the location of the parcels of a holding in a bewildering number of field divisions bearing local names and giv- et quattuor acras et unam perticatam terre in medio campi qui vocatur Osmundesteghe et unam acram et dimidiam perticatam et quinque sulcos terre versus aqui- lonem in campo qui vocatur Reteghe et unam acram et tres perticatas terre in medio pasture de Potynberegh et duas acras terre que iacent versus Potynberegh cum situ unius mo- lendini et unam perticatam et dimidiam et tres sulcos terre in medio culture qui vocatur Shortestiche et dimidiam acram et six sulcos terre versus occidentem hortfurlong et dimidiam acram et decem sulcos terre versus orientem in valle sub Knolle et unam perticatam terre in crofta extra portum versus campum qui iacet sub Chimyno qui vocatur Drove et tres acras bosci de Berfreston qui iacet versus aquilonem et quintam bestiam cum bestiis predictarum [two women holding in dotem] in pastura de forestal ante magnam portam curie de Berefreston ” (Ped. Fin., case 96, no. 276). 1 The parcels “in medio pasture” are puzzling. It may be that old arable campi were at the time used as pastures, or it may be that pastures had been allotted among the tenants and that the latter could utilize their parcels by means 282 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS ing little clue to the husbandry employed. Except that the par- cels were usually small and lay to some extent intermixed with those of other tenants, Kentish arrangements were in contrast with those of the midlands. There was no grouping of parcels into two or three, four or six, fields, with the total areas approximately equal. Nor can it be readily discovered from the surveys thus far noticed whether the parcels of a holding lay to any extent grouped in one part of the unenclosed arable area or whether they were scattered conscientiously throughout it. Most valuable for determining this point is a survey of Gilling- ham, made in 26 Henry VI and preserved at the British Museum in an incomplete nineteenth-century copy.! Gillingham, on the lower Medway near Rochester, has today assumed an industrial character and has lost its early fields. The old survey, however, arranges the tenants’ holdings in iuga, and for each of these gives boundaries and area. Since this is almost the only survey which describes iuga by bounding them, a transcription of the first thirteen boundaries is pertinent : — “Tugum Foghell incipit ad communem viam ducentem inter Renham et Gyllyngham versus South ad terram de Renham et ad salsum Mariscum de Gyllyng- ham versus North et ad terram domine Alicie Passhele versus West et continet illud Iugum xxiii acras. Iugum Cherlman incipit ad terram heredum Adamari Digges vocatam Wynelyng versus West ad Regiam stratam ducentem inter Gyllingham et Ren- ham versus South ad mariscum vocatum Thomas Innyng versus North et ad communem viam ducentem de Berwescrosse ad Twi- delswelle versus East et continet illud Iugum xxiiii acras iii rodas ii day. Iugum Fissher incipit ad campum vocatum Bradefeld versus South of wattles or other temporary enclosures. The phrase “in medio campo” may possibly be a variant of “in medio campi.” 1 Add. MS. 33902. THE KENTISH SYSTEM 283 ad communem stratam vocatam Twidolestrete ducentem ad Twidoleswell versus West ad mariscum salsum versus North et ad metas inter Renham et Gyllingham et terram heredum Thome Gillingham . . . in Iugo Foghell versus East. . . . Duo Iuga Coole incipiunt ad Iugum Fisher ex parte boriali de Bradfeld versus North ad metas de Renham versus East ad Regiam Stratam vocatam Twidolestrete versus West et ad venellam vocatam Cokkeslane ... versus South... . Fraunceis ferthyng incipit in venella vocata Cokkeslane versus North ad croftum Ricardi Mauncer et ad metas de Renham ver- sus East ad Twydolestreete versus West -et ad Iugum Hood versus South... . Iugum Hood incipit ad Fraunceys ferthyng versus North ad Iugum Edweker versus South ad metas de Renham versus East et ad Twidolestrete versus West... . Tugum Edweker incipit ad terram de Renham versus East ad Twidolstrete versus West ad iugum Hood versus North et ad iugum vocatum Raynold versus South... . Iugum Raynold incipit ad metas inter Renham et Gillingham versus East ad Twydolestrete versus West ad iugum Edweker versus North et ad iugum Gilnoth versus South... . Iugum Gilnoth incipit ad metas de Renham versus East ad regiam viam ducentem inter Roffam et Cantuariam versus South ad Twydolestrete versus West et ad jugum Raynold versus North. . . . Iugum Gate incipit ad Twidolestrete versus East ad communem Stratam ducentem inter Eastcourt et Ber- wescrosse versus North 284 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS ad communem viam ducentem ad ecclesiam de Gillingham et ad venellam vocatam Snorehelle lane versus South et ad mesuagium de East court et Scottyssoole versus West. Iugum Petri incipit ad communem Stratam vocatam Iooces- strete versus West ad Twydolestrete versus East ad communem viam ducentem inter Twydolestrete et Ioocesstrete versus North et ad iugum Simstan et ad iugum Alreed versus South... . Iugum Simstan incipit ad Ioocestrete versus West ad iugum Alreed versus Est ad iugum Petri versus North et extendit ad Watescroft in Iugo Alreed versus South. ... Iugum Alreed incipit ad iugum Petri versus North ad Twiddolestrete versus Est ad Iugum Stimston versus West ad’) {blank]*) ¢c2o-versus Southioa) boo? The iuga here described were clearly rectangular areas. From “jugum Fissher”’ to “‘iugum Gilnoth” they formed a seriesrunning from north to south, bounded on the east by the parish of Ren- ham and on the west by Twidolestrete. The next four consti- tuted a similar series lying to the west of Twidolestrete. The iugum here and elsewhere in the survey usually contained about 24 acres, although this number might drop to 5 or rise to 132. Sometimes a double iugum occurred, as in the case of “‘ duo iuga Coole,’ and the fourth part of a iugum might appear as a “ ferthing.” As to the tenants, the distribution and areas of the parcels of their holdings relative to the first fourteen iuga may be tabulated as shown on the following page. Few as are these fourteen iuga in proportion to the entire number, the preceding tabulation shows in a measure their rela- tion to the holdings of the tenants. The lands of any person or estate tended to lie in neighboring iuga, whether in few or in many. ‘The estate of the heirs of John Beausitz appears in each of the above fourteen, continues through the following eight, dis- appears for a long time, but reappears toward the end of the survey in some half-dozen field divisions, two of these being iuga. THE KENTISH SYSTEM 285 The heirs of Thomas Gillingham fare in much the same way. Richard Bamme, who is not introduced until we reach the tenth iugum, continues to have an interest in upwards of twenty-five iuga and other areas, his total estate being large. John Digon, Duo Iuga Fraunceis Name of Iugum ........... Foghell Cherlman Fissher Coole Ferthyng Hood Edweker Area of Iugum!............ 23.0°01 241313. 124.292), 58130 602 2400 205 Heredes Thome de Gillyng- 107 $3.82. 520 Seats Systane eee 220 ames SEs. JATSee oe: 234; 1304 3.01 80 6 Heredes Johannis Beausitz 9 3 3 2341 9 5r4i0 a 48 37 Buea 220295) LOnse5 200 John Grenested ......... soa) atti cae o1o we Jee Stake AliciavHunte .oh. cesta aac Pasig ieee se eae h aoe) i225 t 30 20 Richard Mauncer ........ ees acs es 7 3 3? Name of Iugum..........-. Rayold Gilnoth Gate Petri Simstan Alreed Pilgrym Area of Iugum ........-... 2700 2629 242 23 24 0 143 24 0 343 4t 3 3% 29 2 33 Heredes Thome de Gillyngham .... 1600 Io of rea 605 2°00". 1/131) 27 I 27% rill Se Heredes Johannis Beausitz 2107 #4210 2 4 us, 26 ae: cies) 321 D310 LE Sas } 300 John Grenested ......... ae at 200 PRUCIAPELUNLE se clic iors ieteiere Se} [ 3°) Richard Mauncer ........ 233 Sasa Hota Rea natal 424 20080 ) Domina Alicia Passhele .. 300 ce wate lp woke FORM acy te ciniee cis cies bps c ee 10 24 J 20 it4 : . TO'4 o 64 Richard Bamme ......... nee aoe 5.0 25 I1o0 I20 Pee 2) 0Ny Johanna JOOCe’ =. .-.< 5. .%)- sates Sciers 13.6 ere aps 33 Be i 5 I00 23 Heredes Johannis Bowes .. Be aah Sete 1 8 o7 15 ae aH? John Colman, Sen........ At ba, aah, 221t#-1oo os EY 220 °9 JohmeVork: crmcite es vaccines ae Ss as iaite anes 3 4 6 34 ro 5 ieee Io0o ORSE Se Nuptone 2. 203820485 3 <6 roo 106 ; 10 8 Heredes Johannis Naste .. Sake ee chee oe Io LES. \ 50 01 Re Sere eee saerete sity ioe Io ~ ieiays Thomas Langle.......... cote EG. 3 rary Ph 4s rhe gh Here John Dion tes ciae soe Saie BE ce Satie eo renee 3 ts} ao Heredes Ademari Diggs .. sfio% Pa bee APRS Sy ig ECR ty: 210 Johny Harvey. 25 .c seek ey BLCe Seiave ceee ras meee I o William Zoolay .......... als oehs nf de Ass & asier- bee °o 42 John Ram) ...ncccenes sss Mauss Sets Bevel sere eas Aprae I oO Heredes Johannis Coleman oye see Sores en, I00o 20 1 All areas are in acres, roods, and. day’s works, a day’s work being equivalent to one-fourth of a rood. 2 Includes a messuage. 3 The areas assigned to the last five iuga differ slightly from the sums of the areas of the parcels in each. 4 A garden. 286 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS at first inconspicuous, comes-to have in three neighboring iuga 24 acres in 24 parcels and a croft of 5 acres. Most of the numer- ous tenants, however, were like John Colman or John York: they had small parcels in two or three or four neighboring iuga, but none elsewhere. It is just possible, of course, that such par- cels were contiguous and formed a compact holding artificially divided among arbitrarily drawn iuga. This, however, is unlikely, and in any case the larger holdings have to be thought of as com- posed of parcels to some extent non-contiguous. The survey thus establishes the fact, hitherto obscure, that the parcels of a Kentish holding were not scattered throughout the expanse of the village arable, as under the midland system, but were to some extent segregated in one locality. They did not, however, en- tirely cohere. The field system of Gillingham may, then, be de- scribed as one of non-contiguous, yet of not widely scattered, parcels. Over it all rested the network of the iuga, for the rectangular appearance of which this survey is our best source. Whether blocks of such a shape, regularly disposed and of uniform size, served or,ever had served an agricultural end, is not explained in this abbreviated document. Other Kentish surveys, however, amplify our knowledge, and an extract from one of the best of them is printed in Appendix V. The description of units, tenants, parcels, and rents shows the same completeness which must have characterized the Gillingham original. Beginning and end are wanting, but the hand is of the early fifteenth century. The townships referred to are Newchurch, Bilsington, and Romney Marsh. Iuga are not mentioned, the units here being “ dolae ”’ and ‘‘ tenementa.”’ The accounts of three dolae (“‘ dola Gode- wini,” ‘“‘dola Storni,’’ “‘dola de Kyngessnothe’’) and of three half-dolae (“‘ dimidia dola Mawgeri,” “ alia dimidia dola Maw- geri,’ ‘‘ dimidia dola de Westbrege ”’) have been transcribed. Several characteristics already discerned at Gillingham re- appear. The dolae are described as abutting upon or lying on both sides of certain highways, a circumstance which implies that they were compact areas; indeed, a statement is sometimes added to the effect that their acres lay “‘ coniunctim.” Their size was THE KENTISH SYSTEM 287 uniform, varying only between 4o and 46 acres. Several tenants shared in each, except in “‘ dola de Kyngessnothe,”’ the whole of which was held by the heirs of Jacob de Kyngessnothe. A ten- ant sometimes had parcels in successive dolae or half-dolae. Adam Osbarn had five parcels in one dola, four in another; the heirs of Richard Pundherst had three acres in one, three and one-half in another, and nine in a third — four parcels in all. So far as the incomplete survey permits us to judge, the parcels of a tenant did not lie in many widely separated dolae, but in a few adjacent ones. Additional information may be got from the extracts printed in Appendix V. The parcels within each dola are named and their areas given. Names usually differed, except that a few parcels are said to have lain “in Holland”; the areas, too, of the parcels were not such as to suggest open-field strips. Both circumstances point to the absence of unenclosed arable, an inference which is the more probable since the region in ques- tion is in or near Romney Marsh. The system of iuga or dolae was therefore consistent with one of plats, whether arable, marsh, or pasture, and hence with one of enclosures. Yet if the parcels were plats or enclosures, they were none the less, in the New- church survey, often non-adjacent. So, indeed, the Newington plan, which has already been reproduced, shows the plats there to have been. Conditions of the late sixteenth century thus find a parallel some two hundred years earlier. Other peculiarities of the Kentish system we can best discover by noting in connection with the Newchurch extracts the impli- cations of another survey, perhaps the most satisfactory that we have.! It was made in the early fifteenth century for Thomas Ludlow, abbot of Battle, and refers to the large manor of Wye, situated in the center of the county. Except for its omission of the boundaries and locations of the iuga, it is superior to the Gillingham transcript, and it is more nearly complete and more complex than the Newchurch record. The description, as usual, proceeds by iuga. At Wye these units varied considerably in area, comprising from 37 to 187 1 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 56, ff. 108-188. 288 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS acres, the fluctuations being due to the inclusion of greater or smaller quantities of pasture or down-land. The average size of a iugum was from 60 to 70 acres, in contrast with the 24-acre iugum of Gillingham and the 4o-acre dola of Newchurch. A description of two of the smaller iuga will be of assistance in drawing general conclusions: — “ Dimidium Iugum de foghelchilde Heredes Johanis Dod tenent in campo vocato Wolvenfeld ii acras i rodam dimidiam Agnes Broman tenet in eodem i acram iii rodas et in Strongelonde i acram dimidiam Thomas Elyndenne tenet de iure uxoris sue in Wolvenfelde ii acras dimidiam Heredes Johanis Selke de Broke tenent in Strongelonde iii acras iii rodas. In crofto vocato Jannescroft de Wy i acram terre Heredes Stephani Tur tenent in Strongelond unam acram dimidiam. In Doucerede iii acras et in longecrofte i acram dimidiam Stephanus Dod tenet in Wolvenfeld dimidiam acram dimi- diam rodam Heredes Johanis Selke iunioris tenent in Strongelond ii acrasirodam. In longorcrofte i acram et in mesuagio eorum apud Silkenstrete in capite orientali dicti mesuagii ili rodas Johanes Petycourt tenet apud Gerardesteghile i acram terre Andrus Martyn tenet in mesuagio suo et in Strongelond i acram iii rodas Heredes Simonis German tanner tenent in Clerkescroft i acram iii rodas Thomas Alayn tenet in Selkenbroke iiii acras dimidiam Thomas Kempe tenet in Melcompesmede iii rodas prati que fuerunt Agnetis Danyel Summa xxxili acre i roda dimidia [Rent and services one-half as great as for the following iugum].”’ THE KENTISH SYSTEM 289 “ Tugum de Clyt et Forwerde Hamo German tenet in East walewaye ii acras que fuerunt Thome Scot Item i acram ibidem que fuit Johanis Laghame Item in eodem iii acras que fuerunt Thome de Chityn- den de Willielmo Barrok Item in eodem i acram dimidiam que fuerunt Simonis de Tongge Item in eodem iii rodas terre que fuerunt predicti Si- monis Item in eodem ii acras que fuerunt Johanis Hortone vocati Cukkow Item in eodem i acram terre . . . que fuit Johanis Westbeche Item in eodem i acram terre . . . que fuit Thome German bocher Item in eodem v acras i rodam terre iacentes in longi- tudine ad predictam acram terre predicti Johanis Westbeche Item in eodem i acram dimidiam que fuerunt Steph- ani Tur Summa xix acre Heredes Willielmi Mellere tenent in East waleweye sub le lynche i acram dimidiam Heredes Stephani Tur tenent in Gretefeld i acram dimi- diam Johanes Peticourt tenet in Eastbrettegh ii acras. Et in foldenge i acram i rodam Heredes Roberti Man tenent in Eastbrettegh iili acras Thomas Baldewyne tenet in Westgretefeld ii acras dimi- diam Heredes Johanis Selke tenent in Eastbretteghe i acram dimidiam. In Gretefelde ii acras. In Westgrettfelde dimidiam acram terre Gilbertus Baldewyne tenet in Eastbrettegh i acram dimi- diam terre Summa xxxvii acre i roda 290 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Unde de redditu per annum cum viii d. ob. pro tenemento Gil- berti Forderede ix s. vid. [at six terms] . . . ad Nativitatem domini i gallum ii gallinas Et [ad] Pascham xx ova. Et tenentes predicti debent pro predicto iugo omnes consuetudines et servicia sicut Johannes de Garde debet de proprio iugo suo de Cokeles- coumbe predicto.”’! The concluding phrases, such as are confessedly omitted in the Gillingham copy but occur in connection with each dola at Newchurch, disclose the financial aspect of the iugum. Vary as they might in area, the Wye iuga were alike in the obligations which rested upon them. Rents of assize and services were the same for all. The former were set at 8s. 93d. the iugum, with one-half as much for the half-iugum and one-fourth as much for the virgata. The services were not burdensome, comprising little more than the ploughing, sowing, mowing, and reaping of two or three acres yearly by each iugum.? At Newchurch the value of the rent of assize and of the services due from each dola was eighteen shillings. These heavier obligations imposed upon units which were usually smaller than those at Wye may have been due to a better quality of soil. At any rate, it can no longer be doubted that at the beginning of the fifteenth century theiuga and dolae were primarily financial, not agricultural, units. Whereas several tenants shared in each of them and few tenants were limited to any one of them, they did have financial unity and stability. Their midland correspondents were not the furlongs, as the boundaries at Gillingham might suggest, but rather the virgates or yard-lands upon which, as units, rents and services were always imposed in the midlands. Differ as they might in the distribution of their constituent parcels, Kentish iuga and midland virgates were alike to the rent-collector. 1 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 56, ff. 116, 1140. 2 “ Et debet arare ad frumentum i acram et dimidiam acram terre domini cum facto proprio, petere semen ad granariam in manerio domini de Wy, seminare et herciare predictam acram et dimidiam Et debet arare, seminare semine domini ut supra, et herciare i acram et dimidiam acram terre domini ad sementem ordei et petere semen ut supra. Et debet falcare, spargere, vertere, curmulare, cariare in manerium domini et ad tassum furcare unam acram prati de pratodomini. Et debet metere, ligare, et coppare in autumpno unam acram et dimidiam acram de THE KENTISH SYSTEM 291 Unfortunately, as was noticed above, the iuga of Wye are not bounded in the survey. To discover whether they were compact areas, as were those at Gillingham and Newchurch, we have to attend to the field-names used, and even then we can draw conclu- sions only when the names are not too diverse. In the ‘‘ iugum de Clyt et Forwerde ”’ more than one-half of the parcels and of the area lay in East Walewaye; the remainder was pretty well accounted for by East Brettegh, Gretefeld, and West Gretefeld. Although no statement records that these four areas were contig- uous, it is probable that they formed a block not unlike a iugum at Gillingham. Sometimes the place-names within a iugum at Wye were numerous, certain of them referring to parcels or crofts which fell to individual tenants.! But this circumstance need not conflict with the conception of the lugum as a compact area; it merely implies that such an area was divided into many parts. As at Gillingham and Newchurch, the tenants of each iugum at Wye were likely to be several in number; the first iugum only was in the hands of a single proprietor. Furthermore, as in the other surveys, a tenant usually had parcels in two or three consecutive iuga; but in its greater concentration of the parcels of a holding Wye resembled Newchurch rather than Gillingham. Typical was the holding of John Baldewyne, whose parcels were situated in three iuga as follows: — In the half-iugum Mastall, in Weyberghe 2 acres, 13 roods in Tommestowne 3 roods, 8 day’s-works in le Berghe 2 acres, 13 roods; In the one and one-half iuga Chilcheborne, in Chilchebournesfelde 3 acre, } day’s-work in piriteghe 23 acres in Watertoune et in parvo gardino 13 rood; frumento domini. Et debit xvii averagia et tertiam partem unius averagii per amnum. Et debet inde de relevio cum acciderit xld. Et debet sectam per annum ”’ (ibid., f. 109d). 1 Ten place-names, as we have seen, were connected with the half-iugum of Foghelchilde. Four tenants shared in Wolvenfeld and four in Strangelonde, but the eight remaining areas, four of which were crofts, fell to individual tenants. 292 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS In the half-iugum Ammyng [specification is only by quality of land], olim Thome Chiterenden, terra optimi precii, 1 acre, 3 roods; terra medii precii, 1 rood que fuerunt Simmonis de Tonge, terra optimi precii, 34 acres; terra medii precii, 1 acre; pastura, 25% acres quondam Gilberti Mogge, terra optimi precii, 3 roods; terra medii precii, } acre; pastura, 13 acres que fuerunt Stephani Mogge, terra optimi precii, } acre; terra medii precii, } acre; pastura, 22 acres que fuerunt heredum Johanis Mogge et Hamonis Mogge, terra optimi precii, 13 acres; terra medii precii, 1 acre; pastura, 42 acres. The “ former tenants” here mentioned should be compared with those who appear in the first part of the description of “jugum de Clyt et Forwerde.”! One-half of this iugum had come into the hands of Hamo German, his ten parcels having formerly been held by nine tenants, only one of whom bore the name of German. Since the names of the former tenants are clearly remembered, the accumulation seems to have come about somewhat recently. From phenomena like this we discover that the situation pictured in the survey was not one of long standing, and perceive that a iugum might come to be transformed from an area shared by many tenants into one held by two or three. Enclosure would readily attend upon consolidation, and by the sixteenth or seventeenth century a county largely enclosed would be a natural result. If tendencies toward consolidation are discernible in the ““jugum de Clyt et Forwerde,” none the less were there tenden- cies in the opposite direction. Four of the eight tenants were not individuals but groups, and the group in each case consisted of the heirs of a former tenant. Even if this man’s parcel had been not larger than an acre and a half, it passed to his heirs jointly. In the half-iugum Foghelchilde five of the twelve tenants were groups of heirs. Since the situation was not different with the other iuga at Wye, the actual tenants there must have been 1 Cf. above, p. 280. THE KENTISH SYSTEM 293 far more numerous than are the entries of the survey. At Gillingham and Newchurch, too, the heirs of a defunct tenant frequently appear as his successor. In the half-dola of West- brege the only tenants were three such groups. The custom of transmitting a holding to all the heirs of a tenant rather than to one of them is of course the distinguishing feature of the Kentish tenure known as gavelkind. This usage was in marked contrast with that of the midlands, where the virgate or fractional virgate of a customary tenant passed intact to a single heir or to a new tenant. The antiquity of this Kentish custom, so unusual and so frequently perceptible in the fifteenth century surveys, now deserves consideration. In tracing the earlier history of the iugum much depends upon nomenclature. One of our most valuable documents at this point, since it admits of comparison with the fifteenth-century survey, is a Wye rental of 5 Edward II, which records the tenants of all iuga and the rents accruing from them.!_ On examination we discover that the names of the iuga are practically the same as in the survey of 150 years later, and that the surnames of tenants are frequently unchanged. In the half-iugum Coklescumbe the heirs of John Hughelyn are tenants in the earlier rental, Simon Hoghelyn and Johanna Hoghelyn in the later survey. While surnames often thus persist in the same iugum, there is also a tendency for them to shift from one iugum to another. In the rental, “‘ Gilbertus Dod et Simon Dod tenent iugum de East- chilton pro Willelmo de Chiltone ”’; in the survey, tenants by the name of Dod are found in half-iugum Coklescumbe, in iugum Waleweye, and in half-iugum Foghelchilde. A peculiar difference between rental and survey lies in the fact that in the former the tenants, whether few or several, hold “‘ for’ (pro) one or more persons. The two Dods held “ for ” William de Chiltone. The one-and-one-half iugum Chelcheborne is held ‘‘ pro”? Hugo Mogge and “ Walter de Chelcheborne et socii’’ by Richard de Coumbe, Richard de Broke, Stephen Re- naud, the heirs of William de Chilcheborne, Gilbert de Chilche- borne, Stephen Baldewyne, William Mogge, Richard Mogge, 1°Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 57, ff. g5—105. 294 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Adam Mogge, and Robert “ filius Alain Mogge.”” This is an elab- orate process of sub-letting, both tenants and sub-tenants being many. In the fifteenth-century survey only one group of ten- ants, presumably the old sub-tenant group, is referred to. The significant feature of the rental, however, is the similarity between the names of the iuga and the names of the tenants (not sub-tenants). The tenant of the iugum East Chilton is William de Chiltone. Similarly, ‘‘ Hamo pistor tenet iugum de Wyther- stone pro Gilberto de Wytherstone,” and ‘‘ Thomas de Brones- ford tenet iugum quod vocatur Aula de Bronesford.” The one-and-one-half iugum Cukelescumbe is held by several sub- tenants for a group composed of Walter de Cukelescumbe, the heirs of Hugo de Cukelescumbe, and the heirs of ‘‘ Radulfus molendinarius et socii.””’ Thus, so far as names are concerned, the tenants of the iuga stand at times in intimate relations with the iuga themselves. With the sub-tenants’ names, naturally, such is not the case. In the later Wye survey, too, where we are dealing only with actual holders, who correspond to the former sub-tenants, little similarity between surnames and the names of iuga is to be expected; and, indeed, the matter of nomenclature is there of little importance. The identity between surnames of immediate tenants and names of iuga in the rental of Edward II has noteworthy impli- cations. It might seem that the tenant at times got his name from the iugum rather than the iugum from the tenant. Hugo de Cukelescumbe, Walter de Chilcheborne, Gilbert de Wither- stone, William de Chiltone, are tenants of the iuga whose names they bear. Yet even in these instances it is probable that the personal name was originally derived from some place-name older than that of a iugum at Wye. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that several of the names of the Wye iuga were derived from personal names, and in one instance we can see this happening. Two sub-tenants confer their names upon the juga which they hold. In the rental Gilbert Dod and Simon Dod held the iugum of East Chilton for William de Chiltone; in the survey this iugum appears as one of the “‘ duo iuga de Doddes que vocantur Gerold et East Chilton.” Other iuga in both rental THE KENTISH SYSTEM 295 and survey are obviously designated by personal names. Such are ‘‘iugum Willelmi de lewte et Stephani de Chiltone,” ‘ dimi- dium iugum Orgari pistoris,” ‘‘ iugum [Stephani] Bard et Neel,”’ ‘ dimidium iugum de Bisshop,”’ “‘ dimidium iugum de Knottes et Someres.”’ In the Newchurch survey the dolae bore the names of Godewin, Mawger, and Storn. Since iuga and dolae therefore sometimes came to bear personal names, we may at once inquire what this implies. If a person gives his name to a certain area of land or even derives his name from it, that land is presumably his own in some more or less intimate sense. The dola named from Godwin and the iugum named from Stephen Bard must at one time have been in their occupation or ownership. A clue to the interpreta- tion of the Wye evidence from this point of view is to be had in a still earlier Wye rental, one from the days of Edward I.!_ Although it is merely an enumeration of payments and of the persons responsible for them, the names of the latter, we discover, are names later borne by the iuga.? Most significant is the frequency with which the persons answerable for rents appear as groups of heirs. Where documents of the fourteenth and fifteenth centu- ries speak of ‘“‘iugum de Clyt et Forwerde,’’ the rental states that the “heredes Cliteres”’ and the “‘ heredes Forwerd”’ pay 73d. Where in the later records we have been wont to hear of the half- iugum Foghelchilde, we learn from the early rental that the “heredes Foghel” pay 33d. In short, the rental transports us to a time when most of the iuga were, to be sure, not in the hands of their eponymous tenants, but in the hands of the heirs of such tenants. It is a period antecedent to the two stages pictured by the later rental and the stil] later survey. Back of it is yet an earlier period, the existence of which seems guaranteed by the use of the term “heirs ’’; for, if the heirs of a tenant hold a parcel of land, the tenant in question must once have held it either for himself or as representative of his family group. 1S. R. Scargill-Bird, Custumals of Battle Abbey (Camden Soc., 1887), pp. ror- 136. : * In a half-dozen instances, iuga, not persons, are named as responsible for the payments. 296 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Four stages in the history of the iuga at Wye thus emerge. At a date still undetermined each iugum or half-iugum was attributable to a single tenant, who either gave it his name or, if it already bore a topographical designation, possibly took his name from it. By the end of the thirteenth century it had passed to his heirs, who held it as a group of co-tenants. In the first half of the next century these heirs were distinguished from another group of tenants who held for (pro) them, but whose members had to only a slight extent the same surnames as the group of heirs. By the fifteenth century one group of tenants alone re- mained, and their names have scarcely any connection with the names once traditional in the iugum. To how small a degree the interests of these last tenants were bound up with the iugum is shown by their acquisition of parcels in other iuga as well. The history of the iugum was therefore one of continuous subdivision and reapportionment, largely due to the practice of transmitting landed property to groups of heirs, who in turn at times sub- let it. The effect of such a history upon the appearance of the iugum can be conjectured. Division among co-heirs probably involved giving to each his share of the several qualities of land within the iugum. In the fifteenth century the half-iugum Ammyng gave no names to its parcels, but grouped them as “ terra optimii precii, terra medii precii, et pastura.”! Since allotments of different quality must frequently have been non-contiguous, the tenants of a subdivided iugum would find their holdings consist- ing of scattered parcels. But neither in this condition nor as a compact block before subdivision can the iugum have been fitted into the framework of the midland system. Had the arable of the township been divided into two or three large fields, the jugum as a compact area would in a particular year have been either entirely fallow or entirely sown. That fifteenth- or even thirteenth-century Kentish holdings consisted of scattered parcels does not, therefore, imply midland husbandry. One must re- member, too, that the parcels of the iugum might be meadow or pasture as well as arable, they might be open or enclosed. Only 1 Cf. p. 292, above. THE KENTISH SYSTEM 3 297 one approach to the aspect of the midland system do Kentish postulates allow. If in the case of the arable co-heirs or co- tenants at times devised some system of codperative ploughing, there may have arisen within a iugum something resembling a midland furlong. But such a furlong did not combine with other similar ones to form two or three large fields. With the key to Kentish field arrangements above given, the interpretation of early charters becomes simple. The scattering of parcels is explicable; it was, indeed, normal. The multiplicity of names arises from a reference not only to the field divisions of one iugum, but in all probability to those of two or three iuga. The varying areas of the parcels are appropriate to Kent as they would not be to the midlands, and the small size of most of them was a natural outcome of more or less frequent subdivision. Parcels might or might not assume the appearance of arable strips, according to the tenants’ attitude toward codperative ploughing. Apparently they did practice this on the down-lands of the southeast. In general, then, a fourteenth- or fifteenth- century map would show the parcels of a holding as a network of non-contiguous plats or strips often considerably segregated in one part of the township’s area. In its primary methods and results the Kentish system was not unlike the Scottish or the Irish; transmission to co-heirs or co-tenants wrought similar effects in each case. The difference lay in the original units. In the Celtic countries it was the entire township which was first subjected to subdivision; in Kent, it was the smaller iugum or dola. No conjecture has yet been hazarded as to when the iugum or dola was in the hands of the tenant with whose name it came to be connected. Since iuga are Domesday units, they must have antedated the Conquest. Yet most of the names which they bear are later. At Gillingham the personal names Fissher, Hood, Pilgrym, have no flavor of antiquity. At Wye, in the earliest rental, many of the list seem to be from Norman England. Such are Gilbertus de Wythereston, Willielmus de Pirye, Roger et Juliana de Rengesdon, Radulphus molendinarius, Richardus Besant, and many others. A few names, however, suggest 298 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Saxon or Danish connections, and these are significant. There was a “iugum Wlstani” and a “‘iugum Orgari’’; at Newchurch the dolae bore the names of Godewin, Mawger, and Storn. Apparently iuga and dolae had once been in the hands of Saxons or Danes but had been largely appropriated by victorious Nor- mans, who thereupon affixed to them Norman names and trans- mitted them by tenure of gavelkind. What we should like to discover is whether, before the Conquest, the units had been thus transmitted and whether therefore there had been several tenants of a iugum or dola. To judge from nomenclature alone, one might assume that there had not, that Wlstan, Orgar, Storn each held an undivided tenement. But we know too little about the transmission of socage holdings in pre-Norman days to maintain that one son inherited to the exclusion of his brothers.!. The individual Saxon name attached to each iugum or dola may have been that of the head of a family group and the group may have held the tenement collectively without formally dividing it — a parcel of folk-land. We must thus be content with consigning the Kentish iugum, as a compact rectangular area of from 25 to 60 acres, into the hands of a single Saxon or of a Saxon family, by whom it was cultivated without thought of any two- or three- field system. In order that the system may the better be traced outside the borders of the county, a word should be added regarding other Kentish units of land-holding. In the first place, the iugum had its subdivisions, the fourth part having already made its appearance at Gillingham under the name of “ ferthing.”’ At Wye the same fraction was called a virgate, and a “ virgatam Throfte, vocatam Throfteyerde, continentem L acras’’ was bounded as one block. Farther on we learn that it paid only one-fourth of the usual relief, “‘ sicut de quarta parte unius iugi.”’ ? At Sceldwike there is mention of a “ dimidia virgata terre’ from which 52 acres are granted away, and at Selling there was an agreement “ de tribus iugis terre et una virgata.” * At Eltham 1 Cf. below, p. 304, n. I. 2 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 56, f. 136. 3 Archaeologia Cantiana, i. 262 (Ped. Fin., 10 Rich. I), iv. 308 (8 John). THE KENTISH SYSTEM | 299 virgates entirely superseded iuga as rent-paying units, the villein tenements amounting to 28? virgates of 73 acres each.! This connotation of the term wrgata, a word often found in descriptions of Kentish land, is, however, unusual. Elsewhere in Kentish documents virgata meant a rood, or the fourth part of an acre. Three virgatae, for instance, equalled “ una dimidia acra . . . et una virgata,’”’? and seven virgatae equalled “ una acra et tres virgatae.’’* Such is nearly always the significance of the term in charters and surveys.’ In some places the larger “ sulung”’ persisted as the rent- paying unit, without any reference to iuga. So late as 30 Henry VI the arrangement in Thanet was that 50 tenants held Mer- gate “‘swyllung ”’ of 210 acres, while 13, 10, 20, and 15 tenants held respectively the other sulungs of Savlyng, Westgate, Syan- kesdon, and Hertesdowne.> All sulungs contained 210 acres except the last, which comprised only 146. At Estrey details are given about the four “ sullinga ” and the services due from each in a roll written in a hand of the thirteenth century and said to be “ de novo compositus sed ab antiquo rotulo abstractus.”’ ® Of these sulungs, each containing about 200 acres, the first is described as follows: ‘“‘ In sullunga de Ruberghe sunt ccv acre unde Willielmus de Ruberghe tenet xlv acras et Willielmus Iuvenis et socii sui lx acras et Ricardus cyece et socii sui lx acras et Stephanus filius Normanni et socii sui xl acras.”’ From this it seems likely that the sulung consisted of contiguous blocks of land, and it is clear that one man was often put at the head of his ‘‘ socii ’ as responsible for some 60 acres. Other Christ- church manors at the end of the thirteenth century were assessed by sulungs. In the manor of Ickham we find four of them.’ Again, “apud Monkton sunt xvii swolung de Gavilykind,” each 1 Archaeologia Cantiana, iv. 311 (Inq. p. Mort., 47 Hen. III). 2 Rawl. MS., B 335, f. 54, 9 Edw. II. 3 Cott. MS., Claud. D X, f. 123. 4 E.g., Ped. Fin., case g5, no. 133, 11 Hen. III: ‘‘ De dimidia acra terre et una virgata et dimidia.” 5 MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, Reg. St. Augus- tine’s E xix. f. 1820. 6 Ibid., Roll E, r84a. 7 Ibid., Lib. J, f. 100. 300 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS rendering yearly 20 s. ‘‘ de mala ” and 1} d. the acré “ de gablo.” ! At Adisham there was a tendency to use the term generally — to speak, for example, of 36 acres “‘ de Swylenglonde ” in Pedding (a field name) held by six tenants.2 Certain manors of St. Augustine’s were in the thirteenth century divided into sulungs. At Chislet, ‘‘ Hec sunt consuetudines . . . scil. de quinque su- linges et dimidia’’; and a Littlebourn rental begins, ‘‘ Apud Sircham habetur dimidia sullung de c acris et debet de qualibet acra 1 d. de gablo.”’ 3 Alongside these definite units, the sulung, the dola, the iugum, and the quarter-iugum called virgata or ferthing, there is one less definite, the ‘‘ tenementum.’’ It appears in the Wye survey. Following the list of iuga are many tenementa, each containing from 60 to 70 acres, each paying a considerable rent (e. g., 15 s. gd. from 70% acres) and doing ploughing, reaping, and mowing services much as did the iuga. Iuga and virgatae sometimes appear among them, and like the iuga they comprised parcels held by different men. It seems natural to infer that this second part of the rental describes lands improved or assessed more re- cently than were the old iuga, and at a time when there was a tendency to abandon the ancient term for a new one. This conjecture is strengthened by a fourteenth-century custumal of Eastry,* which is detailed enough in its field names to admit of comparison with the earlier one of the thirteenth century.* In the later roll the term sulung, the basis of assessment in the first, does not appear, and the same lands are grouped under new and smaller units called tenementa, for each of which there are many tenants. In Eastry the sulung seems to have broken directly into tenementa without reference to iuga; in Wye the tenements took their places beside the iuga. One other unit, more distinctively Kentish, should be noticed. This is the “‘day’s work,” often abbreviated to ‘“‘day”’ or “dai.” In the survey of Wye nearly all parcels are given in acres, roods, 1 MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, Reg. St. Augus- tine’s E xix. f. 10. 2 Ibid., f. 216. 3 Cott. MS., Faust. A I, ff. 56, 120. 4 MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, Roll E, 188. 5 Cf. above, p. 299. THE KENTISH SYSTEM | 301 and days. The days seldom exceed ten, and a comparison of items leads to the conclusion that ten day’s-works constituted one rood. The smallest Kentish unit of superficial land measure was thus not the pole or perch, but the equivalent of four poles. Of the five units above described three were certainly not widespread in England, at least under these names. The sulung, the iugum, and the day’s-work are not often mentioned outside of Kent, and hence may without great inaccuracy be called Kentish. The appearance of any of these names elsewhere will suggest the Kentish system.! The terms tenement and virgate are of course common, but the connotation which they had in Kent is, for the virgate at least, distinctive. In default of accessible documents, the methods of tillage em- ployed by manorial tenants in the open fields of mediaeval Kent are not easy to ascertain. There is, however, no reason to think that the demesne may not at times have lain inter- mixed with the tenants’ land,? as it often did in the midlands. If such were the case, the record which we have concerning the tillage of demesne lands may to some extent be representative of methods of tillage in general. In any event, it will disclose the fact that in fourteenth-century Kent certain arable lands were tilled more continuously and with better results than were similar lands in most other parts of England. Evidence regarding the tillage of the demesne can be drawn, as heretofore, from the extents contained in the inquisitions post mortem, especially in those of the late thirteenth and early four- teenth centuries? These documents make it clear that in the midlands the average annual value of an acre of arable which was left fallow every second or third year was from 4 d. to 6 d., with an occasional drop to 3d. and arise to8d. In Kent the percentage of the arable left fallow and the annual value of an acre did not at times greatly differ from this. At Hothfield, in 12 Edward III, 80 acres from a total of 200 were untilled, and 6d. is stated to have been the average annual value of anacre.* Elsewhere, while 1 This is less true of day’s work (cf. p. 228, n. 2). 2 Cf. above, p. 275. 3 Cf. above, p. 46. 4 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 56 (1), 17 July, 12 Edw. III, Hothfeld: “ Sunt ibidem cc acre terre arabilis que valent per annum c s. praetium acre vid. De 302 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the area sown was about two-thirds of the total, the part left fallow had a distinct value as pasture, presumably because it was enclosed. At Throwley, for example, the 110 acres that were sown from a total of 160 were each valued at 6d., but the re- mainder bore pasturage worth 2d. the acre.! Similarly, at Brabourn the demesne arable when sown was worth 6 d., but when unsown the pasturage of each acre was worth 3d. from Easter to All Saints.? Most interesting and most significant, however, are the some- what numerous Kentish manors on which in the middle of the fourteenth century all the acres of the demesne were sown yearly, — ‘‘ possunt seminari quolibet anno.” They were so sown on nearly all the manors of Giles de Badlesmere in 12 Ed- ward III. Under these conditions the value of an acre often became 12d.’ Occasionally it did not rise above 6 d. or 8 d., but this was in the down-country of the east.4 Such annual tillage of the entire demesne, with the resultant high valuation per acre, is a circumstance very unusual for the fourteenth century. It was seldom to be met with outside of Kent, but was there a normal concomitant of the flexible field system which the surveys of the county have shown us. Im a region in which it was generally known that much land could be sown yearly, and in which there quibus seminabantur hoc anno cxx acre ante mortem dicti Egidii et residuum iacet ad warectam.”’ 1 C, Inq. p. Mort., F. 65 (11), 21 May, 15 Edw. III, Throwley: ‘“ Sunt ibidem vi d. et quando non seminantur pastura cuiuslibet acre valet ii d. De quibus seminabantur ante mortem predicti Willielmi de semine yemali et quadragesimali cx acre.” 2 Ibid., F. 45 (24), 11 Edw. III, Brabourn: ‘‘ Sunt ibidem cccxlii acre terre arabilis in dominico que valent . . . quum seminantur pretium acre vid. Et quum non seminantur pastura cuiuslibet acre valet a festo Pasche usque festum Omnium Sanctorum iiid. Et a predicto festo Omnium Sanctorum usque festum Pasche pastura earundem nihil valet quia nihil vendi potest.” 3 Tbid., F. 56 (1), 3 July, 12 Edw. III, Badlesmere: “‘ Sunt ibidem ccc acre terre arrabilis que valent per annum xv li. pretium acre xii d. et possunt quolibet anno seminari et seminabantur hoc anno ante mortem predicti Egidii.”” So too, with difference of areas, was it at Chatham, Kingston, Tong, Sibton, Wilderton. At Erith there were 243 acres of “ terra arabilis in marisco”’ worth 3s. the acre, and 68 other acres of arable worth 20 d. the acre. 4 E.g., at Chilham 8 d., at Ringwold 6 d., at Whitstable 6 d. (ibid.). THE KENTISH SYSTEM 303 was no system of two or three open fields, agriculture appears to have advanced more rapidly than elsewhere in England. We are at length in a position to summarize the characteristics of the Kentish field system. In part they are negative. The arable fields of a township were not divided into two or three large areas in each of which all virgate or bovate holders had strips and one of which was usually left fallow. On the contrary, all the improved land of the township was marked off into more or less rectangular areas called iuga, dolae, or tenementa, all serving as units for the assessment of rents and services. If an actual fifteenth-century holding be considered, it appears that the constituent parcels did not lie consolidated within any iugum. Instead, they were likely to be scattered throughout several iuga, but through those which lay mainly in one section of the township. This situation seems not to have been the original one, but to have arisen from the subdivision of a once compact holding among co-heirs or co-lessees. The acquisition by many of these new tenants of parcels in other iuga gave rise to the dis- creteness which the fifteenth century knew. The parcels at that time were arable, meadow, or pasture; and so far as they were arable and were ploughed by a large codperative plough they may well have been strips like those of the midlands. On the downs in the southeastern part of the county such have been discerned. The rotation of crops was variable, sometimes resembling that of the midlands, but frequently tending toward an unbroken succession. The absence of a three-course rotation, and espe- cially of a large compact fallow field, made easily possible the reconsolidation of scattered parcels as soon as the tide turned in that direction. It apparently did so turn from the fifteenth century, and hence Kent early became characterized by the con- solidation and enclosure of its farms.1. Toward this enclosure the flexible field system contributed in no negligible degree. How ancient was the custom of subdividing holdings among heirs is not altogether clear. It was observed at Wye in the time 1 The persistence of a heavy four-horse plough did not prevent enclosure, since Boys in his report to the Board of Agriculture notes both phenomena (General View of the Agriculture of the County of Kent, pp. 21, 41, 44, 70). 304 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS of Edward I, when the heirs appear in most cases as descendants of Normans. Yet a few iuga there derived their names from Anglo-Saxons or Danes — an indication that in some sense the iuga were before the Conquest connected with individuals. Whether the Anglo-Saxon tenant held for himself or for his family group must be left undetermined. If the latter relation- ship was the existent one, the custom of gavelkind is carried back to pre-Conquest days.!. However this be, the Kentish system, in the subdivision and reconsolidation of its holdings, was not unlike the Celtic. It was in the size and shape of their respective units that the two systems differed. The iugum of the one was rectangular and relatively small, the townland of the other irreg- ular in shape and larger. An explanation of these facts and of the origin of the Kentish system will be hazarded in a concluding summary and synthesis. 1 Maitland remarks that there is no reason for assigning the body of Kentish custom characterized by tenure of gavelkind to a period earlier than the Conquest. Elsewhere he notes that the Kentish villani of Domesday Book seem not particu- larly distinguished from those of other counties among whom a system of impartible successions may at that time have prevailed. (Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2d ed., Cambridge, 1898, i. 187; ii. 272, 263). CHAPTER VIII THe East ANGLIAN SYSTEM EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY survivals of open field in East Anglia offer suggestions about the character of the field system that once prevailed there, and this information is considerably amplified by sixteenth-century surveys. With the key thus secured earlier and less detailed data can be interpreted. Enclosure awards from Norfolk drawn up after 1750 show little surviving open arable field, and those from Suffolk almost none. The plan and appendix prepared by Slater to illustrate parlia- mentary enclosures in the northern county convey a wrong im- pression.!. Relying as he did upon the acts which authorized the awards, he failed to perceive a peculiarity of Norfolk procedure. For it came to be customary in the county, even when there was but little open arable field within a township, to ask for a nominal re-allotment of the entire township in order to obviate any per- sisting common rights and to establish authoritative titles to ownership. This procedure comes to light through a comparison of certain enclosure awards with nearly contemporary maps and surveys of the same townships made by W. J. Dugmore in 1778.2. Relative to Weasenham All Saints, Weasenham St. Peter, and Wellingham, the enclosure award of 1809 declares that “* all lands and grounds in the said several parishes . . . do con- tain by measure 4406 acres,’ and this amount is forthwith allotted. One might conclude that all or much of the area in question was open field, were it not that the earlier Dugmore map reveals at Weasenham only 421 acres of open arable field (in 337 parcels) and at Wellingham only about 50 acres. The Sparham and Bil- 1 English Peasantry, pp. 197, 215, 290. He remarks that after 1793 the acts fail to make mention of areas. 2 The Dugmore maps, which were drawn for Thomas W. Coke, Esq., are among the Holkham MSS., and the awards referred to are either in the same collection or at the Shire Hall in Norwich. 395 306 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS lingford enclosure award of 1809 allots almost all of the 3533 acres which constitute the two townships, but the Dugmore map shows that not more than one-sixth of this area was in open field.! Although the entire parish of Longham containing 1286 acres was the subject of the enclosure award of 1814, the map of 1778 shows it already enclosed except for some twenty-one strips of open field which contained less than 50 acres. Finally, the Warham award of 1813, which announces that the entire parish of 2303 acres is to be divided and allotted, should be interpreted in connection with a map of 1712, in which one-half of the parish is seen to be already enclosed.* Because of this aspect of parlia- mentary enclosure in Norfolk, any inference as to the amount of arable open field existent there after 1750, so far as it is based upon parliamentary petitions and acts, is untrustworthy. Nor, indeed, is it possible to get from the awards themselves very accurate information on this subject. The plans, which alone are useful, are so intent upon the new allotments as only occasionally to indicate by fine lines what the old arrangements were. In a general way, however, the existing enclosures left unchanged in an award can usually be distinguished by their irregular, more or less quadrilateral shape. To judge from them, it appears that at times hardly any open-field strips remained, the award evidently having been made in order to abolish certain rights of common which might still be claimed over enclosed land.’ The phraseology of other awards makes it difficult, if not im- possible, to determine how much of the area actually affected by them was waste and how much was arable.’ Under these cir- 1 About 125 acres in Sparham and from 400 to 500 acres in Billingford. 2 The Warham map of 1712 is at Holkham Hall. 3 Among such awards are those relating to Great Walsingham, Little Walsing- ham, and Houghton (1812), Mileham and Beeston (1814), Gresham and Sustead (1828), all at the Shire Hall, Norwich. A similar award relative to Winforton, Herefordshire, has been noted above, p. 140. 4 The preamble of the Wootton award of 1813 declares that it is concerned with 394 acres of ‘‘ open and common fields, fens, commons and waste lands.”’ Each allotment, however, refers more accurately to ‘‘ commons, fens, and waste lands,” while the plan shows that the area in question was unimproved land on the out- skirts of an enclosed township. The Wymondham award of 1810 notes that the “lands and grounds directed to be divided, allotted, and inclosed contain 2285 THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 307 cumstances an examination of all the available awards and plans, such as has been made for Oxfordshire and Herefordshire and such as here too would be the only safe basis for a generalization, promises an unsatisfactory return for a great expenditure of labor. If undertaken, it would, we may safely surmise, show few townships with so much as one-third of their improved area still in open field, and in most townships the fraction would be less than one-tenth.! William Marshall’s description, written in 1787, supports this view. It runs as follows: “Some remnants of common fields still remain; but in general they are not larger than well-sized inclosures. Upon the whole, East Norfolk at large may be said to be a very old-inclosed country. . . . [The] few common fields [left] . . . are in general very small; ten, twenty or thirty acres; cut into patches and shreds of two or three acres, down to half an acre, or, perhaps, a rood each. . .. Towards the north coast some pretty extensive common-fields remain open; and some few in the southern Hundreds.” ? If it be true that Norfolk arable fields were very largely en- closed without the aid of parliamentary act, the period at which the process took place most rapidly becomes a matter of interest. The subject cannot here be adequately discussed, but the testi- mony of one or two groups of documents may be noted. Sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century surveys, of which there are several from this county, concur in representing the acres.” A schedule denominates 1934 acres as ‘‘ Total com. Allots.”” and 351 acres as “ Total Field Allots.”” Only from the excellent map do we discover that the 1934 acres were the old enclosures, and that the 351 acres were parcels on the outskirts of the township looking very much like waste land. Both these awards are at the Shire Hall, Norwich. 1 The common field at Fellbrigg before its enclosure in 1771 was, according to the reporter to the Board of Agriculture, unusually extensive. He remarks that the township had remained time out of mind in the following state: 400 acres inclosed, 400 common field, 100 woodland, 400 common heath (Nathaniel Kent, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Norfolk, London, 1794, p. 23). Relatively large was the expanse of open arable field at Ormesby, where in 1845 it amounted to 700 acres, in contrast with 1464 acres of old enclosures and 521 acres of roads and commons. At Weasenham and Wellingham about 500 acres were in 1809 un- enclosed in townships comprising an area of 4406 acres. 2 The Rural Economy of Norfolk, comprising the Management of Landed Estates and the Present Practice of Husbandry in that County (London, 1787), i. 4, 8. 308 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS open fields as still mainly intact.'| Considerable enclosing there- fore took place at some time between 1600 and 1750. How much of it occurred before 1714 may be in part discerned from a summary of the plans of nineteen estates lying in a somewhat larger number of townships in the central and eastern part of the county and belonging to St. Helen’s, the Boys’, and other hospitals in Norwich.? It will be seen that about eighty per cent of the total area of these estates was enclosed when the plans were made; but whether most closes had arisen through encroachments upon the open fields may be doubted, since in nine estates all or a part of them bordered upon the respective common wastes. In those estates, however, in which enclosures from the waste play a smaller part, the open and enclosed areas nearly balance each other. In the Trowse and Bixley property of 58 acres the area of the scattered enclosed plats was 34 acres, that of the open-field strips 24 acres; in the Buxton estate there were 20 acres enclosed, 18 open; at Shropham, the open-field strips seem to have contained about the same number of acres as the scattered closes, neglecting enclosures from the common; at Snitterton unenclosed strips predominated. In general, then, it is possible that not more than one-half of the open arable fields in the region round Norwich had been enclosed before 1714. The method followed in bringing about enclosure before this date was the piecemeal one described by Nathaniel Kent at the end of the eighteenth century and still employed at that time.* 1 Certain of these surveys are referred to below (p. 313 sg.) in the discussion of field arrangements. Corbett, describing the open fields of six Norfolk villages, infers that in four instances enclosure had affected not more than one-half of the arable and in the two others much less than this (“‘ Elizabethan Village Surveys,” p. 87). 2 Cf. p. 309. These plans, which are among the Norwich records kept in the castle, were made known to me through the kindness of J. S. Tingey, Esq. 3 “ There is still a considerable deal of common field land in Norfolk, though a much less proportion than in many other counties; for notwithstanding common rights for great cattle exist in all of them and even sheep walk privileges in many, yet the natural industry of the people is such, that wherever a person can get four or five acres together, he plants a white thorn hedge round it, and sets an oak at every rod distance, which is consented to by a kind of general courtesy from one neighbor to another ” (General View of the Agriculture of Norfolk, p. 22). William THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM Township Forncett Bixley Trowse and Bixley...... ellingtone. 6 a./taa sel Calthrope and Woolverton Sprowston Barton Shipham Snitterton Buxton, Haveringham, Straton Sallows and Wroxham .. Shropham Enclosed Area in Acres 176 19 73 181 83 85 45 139 34 164 94 13 97 7O 18 20 7a 11g 186 No. of Parcels 22 20 Io II 23 How Situated A compact area near the common. Non-contiguous parcels. A compact though elon- gated area. A compact area. A compact area near the common. A compact area. One group of four closes, another of three. An elongated area twice broken by tongues of land. Six non-contiguous par- cels. A compact area adjoining the common. Four non-adjacent par- cels. Two non-adjacent closes. A compact area adjoining the common. Threenon-adjacent blocks adjoining the common. Four closes in the com- mon and two home closes. Two detached closes in the field and five home closes. Three non-adjacent closes of 11 acres in the field, the remainder in two large blocks bordering the common. A compact area bordering the fen and marshes. Manynon-contiguouspar- cels, and 89 acres of common. a9 Open Field Area | No. of in Acres | Parcels 8 7 24 20 3 2 3 [ 8 4 ie; 2 5 3 27 18 18 20 9 8 26 23 62 40° 310 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Plans of the Norwich hospital estates often show single strips enclosed as long rectangular “ pightles.”’ At Shropham there were seventeen such, most of them non-adjacent and with a total area of 38 acres; one containing seven acres is labelled “‘for- merly several pightles.”” At Great Melton there was in Bow field an enclosed piece of one acre and another strip of one and one- half acres “ partly inclosed’’; at Shipham two separate acre strips were partly enclosed. In these plans, too, is discernible another characteristic of Norfolk fields which was conducive to piecemeal enclosure. At Shropham a half-acre strip is labelled “a piece in Clark’s Close,” and near by two other strips together containing one acre are “‘ pieces in another close.”” In these cases the enclosure of a furlong had preceded consolidation of owner- ship. It is not, however, by any means certain that such con- ditions arose only after the sixteenth century; for early charters sometimes refer to non-contiguous strips in the same croft, as, for instance, “‘ tres pecie divise in Lyckemillecroft.” ! Whether the phenomenon be early or late, it undoubtedly contributed to informal enclosure. If we turn from the enclosure of Norfolk open fields to con- sider the aspect of such of them as did persist into the early years of the eighteenth century, we find the plans of the estates of the Norwich hospitals still instructive. Although, as we have seen, about one-third of these estates were enclosed and another third had in each case only three or four detached strips of land, the remaining third retained considerable open field. It is the situation of these open-field strips that for the moment is of interest. An estate of 38 acres in Buxton, pictured in the accompanying plan, extended into two adjacent parishes. Near the farmhouse were five closes containing together 12 acres, while at a distance was a detached close of 6 acres. The remaining 20 Marshall notes the inconvenience arising from such procedure. ‘‘ But another species of intermixture, much more disagreeable to the occupier, is here singularly prevalent. It is very common for an inclosure, lying, perhaps, in the center of an otherwise entire farm, to be cut in two by a slip of glebe or other land lying in it; and still more common for small inclosures to be similarly situated” (Rural Economy of Norfolk, i. 8). 1 P. R. O. Ancient Charter A 3138, temp. Edw. I. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 311 acres lay in twenty-one strips, all non-contiguous, except that three abutted upon others. The parcels, however, were not widely scattered. All lay in the same part of the township not far from the farmstead, and some were obviously either in the same furlong or in adjacent furlongs. Another estate of 255 Reduced Plan of an Estate belonging to the Girls’ Hospital, Norwich, and situated in the Townships of Buxton, Haveringham, and Straton, Norfolk. Total area, 38 acres. 1714, Map XIII acres in Shropham lay on the edge of the common, from which go acres of ‘‘ Breck Lands”’ had been appropriated.1. Eighteen other enclosures, which together contained about 100 acres, were for the most part detached from one another, and several had evidently been strips of open field. The remaining 65 acres still lay in open field divided into forty-two strips, some of which were in the same furlong (here called “ field’). Although the parcels 1 Cf. plate, p. 312. MO4110G4R1T ‘FILI “Se10B QCZ ‘Baie [B10], “ALJ -10N ‘uvydoiqg jo drysuaoy, 9q3 Ul par -BNYIS PUB ‘TOLMION ‘Teyidsoy Sm} H IS 03 BuyFu0jaq o3NISy ‘ne yO Uv[g peonpey uomWMmog AIX 4VW ToOmMmo” S9S0[) a100qy Suyudg ToOumd) 0-€- 88 spuvy yoog 9-416 esol) 03 UH emooag aso[p SAPAt ut OI-T-2 [Waores L[L9ULLOF Perron) ex010 esoi9 [81-5 sasoj) (‘OI-8-1-1— 48-4 aqowuog e801) 03-2) fe | i 6 sovayd ONL 0-0-6 PIA Wooug uy salyqayd saved oouyy, PPT S01D MTN Uy evetd y PIMLA PUM UY sa0aqa 9944) S[aoma0g 0-0-1 nels 980] Yornoun uy via \ovargjous ZI-8-1 pesojeuy 8 Waqung? feqsu0lg Uy a00]d Y P8010 844810 ay eoojd ¥ PIA Pts sperg it OD] sa0atd omy Lane 3 Uy se0etd Om, PPA pavpsuey Uy soveyd xg uomumo) 312 4 THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 313 of this estate, both open and enclosed, were numerous and dis- parate, they did not lie scattered throughout the township, but were near the farmhouse. As at Buxton, the farm was one of non-contiguous parcels lying in the same section of the village area. The four other hospital estates which retained most open field show similar characteristics.! These field arrangements can in 1714 scarcely have been recent. If they were, they would have to be explained as repre- senting a transitional stage between widely-scattered strips on the one hand and enclosures on the other. Apart from the cum- bersomeness of a procedure that would eventually necessitate another exchange, the uniformity of the evidence tells against an original wide dissemination of strips. Although in some cases tentative exchanges may have occurred, such a process can hardly have gone on systematically and to the same degree in all the properties before us. Not one of the six is an estate with parcels scattered throughout the village area. If, on the other hand, it be true that the arrangements of 1714 are an inheritance from a considerably earlier period, we have a contrast to the midland system, the essence of which lay in a wider and more nearly uniform distribution of parcels. For the sixteenth century, admirable data regarding field arrangements are furnished by surveys and maps such as were made to describe many of the earl of Leicester’s estates.? In these documents there is usually no subdivision by “‘ fields ” in the technical midland sense,? but the enumeration proceeds by furlongs, frequently called stadia or quarentinae. Sometimes, happily, these furlongs are so grouped that we can tell in what part of the village area certain of them lay. They are referred to “ precincts,” divisions formed usually by the highways that traverse the township.’ East Carleton and Hethilde were each 1 These estates were at Snitterton, Great Melton, Trowse and Bixley, Sallows and Wroxham. 2 These are among the well-arranged records at Holkham Hall, for access to which I am indebted to the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Leicester, K. G. 3 Corbett, in his study of certain Norfolk surveys (“‘ Elizabethan Village Sur- veys,” p. 70, remarks upon the unimportance of the fields. 4 Miss Davenport found mention of only precincts in the Forncett records (Economic Development of a Norfolk Manor, Cambridge, 1906, p. 1). 314 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS thus subdivided into five precincts; ! Burnham Sutton had three, one being considerably smaller than the others;* Weasenham was cut by the Massingham road into a North and a South pre- cinct, the two being approximately equal in extent. When “ fields ’’ do occur in the surveys they are as inconsequent as the precincts, being determined by the topography of the parish, the relative position of its highways, or the points of the compass. In the same region there thus arose two, three, four, or five fields. Castle Acre had three, West, Middle, and East, divided by highways and of approximately the same size; ‘ not far away, Warham had five unequal fields.® Among such haphazard fields or pibeinetls 5 we should hardly expect to find an equal distribution of the parcels of the various holdings. From the accompanying tabulation of a few of those ~ at Castle Acre, which has most the semblance of a three-field parish, it can be seen how indifferent to the “‘ fields’ was the distribution of acres.* In the first holding nearly three-fourths of the acres lay in West field, in contrast with one-twelfth of them in Middle field; in the second holding three-fourths, again, lay in West field, with the remainder in Middle field and none whatever in East field. The third holding redresses the balance by assign- ing to East field nearly 70 per cent of its acres and to West field less than 10 per cent. Still other holdings lay largely in Middle field, like that of Domina Bell, 80 per cent of whose land was there. Such arrangements are, of course, inconsistent with the midland adaptation of fields to a three-course rotation of crops. At West Lexham the departure from the midland system took another form. As a map of 1575 shows,’ there was no division 1 Stowe MS. 870 (field-book of 13 Eliz.). 2 Rawl. MS., B 390 (field-book of 38 Eliz.). 3 Holkham Records, field-book of 42 Eliz., and map of the same date (cf. below, p. 327). 4 Holkham Maps, No. 18. The fields lay to the north of the village, whence two highways extend to the north and northwest. Middle field lay between these high- ways, the other fields to the west and east respectively. 5 Holkham Deeds 182, 30 Eliz. § Holkham Deeds 57 (field-book of 25 Eliz.). 7 It is among the Holkham Records and is sketched in the accompanying cut. 315 THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM “Thr puy ¢ . ¢ For Cerne se sae Toy hots vitaae a) eters UdATIA pieyony tI Sy & v z se r4 see ¢ D Pa HOS ARCO C190 Delos) Avs uyof a tov ELI 4z ¥z sae iv see wae CA IGS 2 iO ORE tae teas ea BUIWIOG . z¢ *ov eae g1 se eee Tie ce ae ploy ype'T BIIISIV IAL ras 41 C1 eae Chee es Z &z see Sy see v1 5 Tamale OP OECRD SRO CECH et apie uyof 4z 61 see se £Q 9 see see see £S1 11 pueuerelhas ls) aun di Vukwe! 66 JIMOJ uyof 71 ¢ ¥I get Pa £y £% ee eee Vv Vrelele se > Glew = ese 6 Bre okey) uyof Sr | ¥€oz| o1 I £06 | ¥1 oz | §S1 SSS Lo) Fx aes Teg (RPA TRS © Ci ppeysury uyof £6 £71 £Q gp sae * sae tH ¢ Os OW Sedo OO tha Oo Ppoom osnyy Ooo eee see fon OED x v ae £Qz ¢ (g) £1 a4 eae sae ¢ Codie ninc sc Nd CG Oo tr oan quot 1930 peg | sod peq | ioug peq | song peq | 10ug aanen| arg | 243 JO! 243 3° foanen] aarg | 24330 | 943 JO loareny| org | 247 3° | 847 J Jaaren] aarg | 243 JO | ON JO ase ausoula(y ausawia(y ausawla(] eee -nssayy syuvuay, PIP ISeq PPI FIPPHAL PP 359M pasopug MIOIAION ‘AAV ATLSVD LV SONIGIOP{ GILOATAS JO SHAY AHL AO NOILNAIALSICG 316 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS by fields or precincts, but the two largest holdings lay in strips in the northern two-thirds of the township, while the small hold- ings were for the most part thrown together in intermixed strips south and southeast of the village. Neither in the township as a whole nor in this southern part of it is there trace of tripartite division. Of all sixteenth-century Norfolk records those of Weasenham give the most satisfactory idea of the management of the open field in the northwestern part of the county. Particularly useful are (1) a large map of 1600, in two parts, giving the names of many of the open-field furlongs, with an accompanying field- book recording the areas and locations of the constituent parcels of the tenants’ holdings; and (2) the note-book of a Weasenham farmer, George Elmdon, describing the sowing of his lands in 1583, 1584, 1588, and 1589. From this group of documents we can discover how the tenants’ holdings were distributed among the precincts: and how the parcels of Elmdon’s holding were grouped for tillage. The map is here outlined, selected holdings from the field-book are summarized, and the information from the note-book is both tabulated and interpreted topographically. The map is slightly incomplete in that it does not give the whole of one sheep pasture.!_ A later plan shows this pasture or “* fold-course,”’ which is in the northwestern part of the township, to have been at least twice as large as the other fold-course, which is represented. Apart from these two fold-courses, some small commons, and a few enclosures, all lands were open arable field. This open field, constituting about two-thirds of the township’s area, was cut into two nearly equal parts by the Massingham road, which divided the Northern from the Southern precinct. In the Southern lay the hamlet and parish of Weasenham St. Mary with its church; in the Northern, the hamlet and parish of Weasenham St. Peter, the church here being just south of the road. If we turn to the field-book to discover the relation of the tenants’ holdings to the precincts, we find that the larger holdings were nearly always unequally divided between precincts and that the smaller ones frequently lay wholly within one 1 The outline of the map is on p. 322. Sketch of a Map of the « 1575 Norfolk q s a 4 ® a ~ n ® E 4 ° i=) r| n =| E {o) a Demesne Closes Common Demesne LYNNE Waye erall, 127 acres Lord’s||Sev aioe | Common TENANTS - Yelverton Demesne strips are unmarked - Glebe - Elwyne A. - Audley - Lee E.L.- E.Lee _- Newton - Clark . - Clements ct. - Curlington cc. - Cushing GL. - Gell WwW. - Warde cs, - Case - Potter Y. G. E. L. N. c. cL Pp, Map XV 317 318 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS precinct... This arrangement precludes the possibility that Weasenham was at the end of the sixteenth century cultivated as a two-field township. One of these late sixteenth-century holdings about which we are well informed is that of George Elmdon, who, as noted above, in four separate years (1583, 1584, 1588, 1589) made careful record of how each parcel of his arable was sown. The account, which is unique and valuable, shows that much of the holding was leasehold and varied somewhat in amount from year to year. When in 1588 Elmdon drew up a list of the lands in his possession, he had 71 acres of enclosed arable and meadow, 12 acres of open “meadow, and 199 acres of open arable field. - The notes that describe the sowing of crops account for from 120 to 160 acres yearly, but in the record of any one year a part of the open-field arable usually fails to appear, because laid down for the time in grass. An idea of the character of these notes will be got from the following transcript, relative to the year 1584: — “Wynter corne stubble to sowe barlye on pro anno 1585 TeVdritelakesmiere: 2%. 2: soe ceed Sen Crees ees xi* super Overgate versus! boréamy 2,260 cu..no eee eninciont xii* iii? di. Dowespitt 8.34 tiscihs Ss bia See eee) eee ae ee iii? Roysdike als Rushdike di. et ii# yt John Burges had wheat on ii? di. Museen cietlesay |. Pons Ne ee Mae ee ee ses eee i* di. Jidemere ‘furlonge et howlond: ~==>---- ===S==>==2 BRIGHTWONG STYE Wesenham Moare EASTGATE The Shepes Oourse of Easte Hall givousooo Map XVI the church, and apparently there were none near Goosegate, which ran to the south. A few of the Milstye group extended into the Northern precinct, on the other side of Massingham way. Elsewhere in this precinct, which was larger than the Southern, Elmdon had only two small groups of parcels, one toward the west, the other toward the northeast. In another way we thus arrive at the conclusion which has already been reached from a The names of the highways and field paths are of assistance, however, and the rough grouping of the sketch is reasonably accurate. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 323 consideration of the totals of the field-books of Weasenham and Castle Acre, the conclusion namely that in Norfolk a tenant’s arable acres were likely to be concentrated within a particular precinct or field of the township. Holdings so constituted can be reconciled with the existence of a two- or three-field system only on the assumption that a township had groups of two or three fields and that the parcels concentrated lay in one of these groups. Of Elmdon’s three groups of parcels that were assigned successively to winter corn, spring corn, and fallow, two, those near Overgate and Milstye, were each distinctly segregated; and the two may conceivably be thought of as having lain in two compact fields. These fields would, however, have constituted only about one-fourth of the total unenclosed arable, an excessive concentration implying that there were five or six other similar fields. Apart from the attribution of so large a number of fields to Weasenham in the sixteenth century, a difficulty arises regarding Elmdon’s third group of parcels. This, instead of being compact, broke into three sub-groups, one lying in the southwest of the township near the Overgate group, the others in the Northern precinct widely removed one from the other. What we actually have, then, is a concentration of two groups of parcels and part of the third within a relatively circumscribed portion of the township’s arable. Such locations preclude a six-field arrangement, and one of eight fields does not comport with three-course husbandry. Despite the three-course rotation of crops at Weasenham, there- fore, the distribution of Elmdon’s parcels conflicts with the assumption that the township was one of three or of six fields. Other features of Elmdon’s notes emphasize this conclusion. The writer never says, as he so easily might have done had the system been simple, “‘ Sown with winter corn, all parcels in X field.”” On the contrary, he nearly always assigns his strips to furlongs, with only an occasional mention of fields. The area round Westgate is at times, to be sure, vaguely referred to as Westgate field or South field, but in it lay parcels devoted to different crops. In it, too, lay at least two-thirds of Elmdon’s holding. Since for these reasons it cannot be thought of as 324 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS functioning like a midland field, the designation without doubt had merely a topographical connotation. Again, we hear of Kipton field, so named from its proximity to the site of the manor of Kipton. Here lay 12} acres of Elmdon’s land; but inasmuch as these same acres are elsewhere referred to as in the ‘“‘ newe-broken field’’ and were situated not far from the ‘“‘Shepes pasture of Kipton and Northall,” the “ field’ in ques- tion may have been a newly-improved tract of arable. As was just noted, parcels within the same field were at times not under the same crops as neighboring parcels. Although, in 1583, 13 acres of Blackland field lay in wheat stubble, 4% acres of the same field were at the same time in pease stubble. One of the parcels in the extract quoted had been under barley for one season and was to be so during the next year.!_ In the fur- long called Newbie there were in 1589 some parcels fallow and some sown with winter corn. All this implies considerable flexi- bilityin the utilization of the open field. The existence of ollands, or strips of grass in the midst of winter and spring corn, testifies further to the same characteristic and helped make it possible. This flexibility appears most strikingly in the sowing of Elm- don’s open field in 1589. In this year, it will be remembered, the acres hitherto equally divided between winter corn, spring corn, and fallow were unequally apportioned. In preceding years, to each crop and to the “ somerlie”’ had been allotted about 4o acres (1583) or about 55 (1584, 1588). In 1589, the total acreage accounted for was 145 acres. As usual, one-third of this, 48 acres, was somerlie; of the remainder only 32 acres were devoted to wheat, while upon 65 acres spring grains were sown. Such expansion and contraction of the acreage assigned to a particular crop would have been possible under a three-field system only if all tenants had agreed to shift for the year the boundaries of the three fields. In Elmdon’s note-book there is no hint that his dispositions rest upon communal arrangements of this sort. As a result of the implications of Elmdon’s notes, we are led to conclude that a three-course rotation of crops in the open 1 Cf. above, p. 318. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 325 fields of Norfolk was not necessarily indicative of a three-field system. On the contrary, it proved feasible to till parcels con- centrated in one part of the open field in such a manner as to allot one-third of them to winter corn, one-third to spring corn, and to leave one-third fallow. Under these circumstances each third naturally consisted, as far as possible, of neighboring parcels. It may seem, however, that the introduction in the same year of two crops and a fallow within a limited portion of the township’s arable was a retrogression from the principles of the midland system; that the obvious convenience of the large and simple divisions of that arrangement was sacrificed, inasmuch as a compact fallow field for the pasturage of sheep and cattle thus became impossible in East Anglia. Such questionings are pertinent and bring us to a new aspect of the subject, namely, the provision made for the pasture of cattle and sheep in East Anglian fields. Certain items regarding Weasenham may serve as introduc- tion. The map of 1600, and still better that of 1726-28, show two large “ sheep’s courses’ distinct from the open fields, one appertaining to the manors of Kipton and Northall, the other to the manor of Easthall.'_ Relative to the open strips them- selves the schedule accompanying the later map gives informa- tion. Apart from 717 acres of “ break”’ (the former sheep’s course of Northall and Kipton), the largest of Sir Thomas Coke’s farms comprised arable land described as follows: — “Subject to its own flock and including whole year grounds, 265 acres, Subject to the flock of Easthall, 56 acres, and to Lord Townshends [flock] in Little Raynham and Martin Raynham, 42 acres.” From this it appears that the sheep within a township fell into flocks, each manor having its own flock. Any particular parcel of open-field arable was “ subject ” to a certain flock, perhaps not to that of the proprietor of the land in question. Pasturage arrangements were not devised with a view to the township as a whole, as in a midland village, where rights of pasturage over 1 Cf. above, p. 322. 326 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the commons and fallow field inhered in the community and were jointly exercised by all its land-holding members. In Nor- folk pasturage rights over certain pastures and certain portions of the fallow field (together called ‘“ fold-courses ’’) appertained only to particular proprietors, other land-holders being excluded. Since this was the practice, it would have served no end had George Elmdon’s acres been distributed among three fields. When one-third of them lay fallow, they would not have been open to all the sheep of the township, but would have been reserved for a particular flock. All arable which in any year lay fallow in the township did not form one common pasture, but had to be subdivided in accordance with the claims of the several flocks. If it be thought that the Weasenham evidence in this matter is insufficient, there is fuller information relative to Holkham, near by. A map of this township, dated 1590, discloses its pasturage arrangements,! which are further explained by the report of a special royal commission sent in 1584 to ascertain the queen’s rights in the “ common wastes.’ The map shows a large South field equal in size to both of the other fields, which were known as Church and Stathe. The marshes to the north next the sea constitute one common, the Lyng on the southeast another. Across fields and commons are traced the boundaries of four fold- courses, each comprising about one-fourth of the township’s arable and common waste,’ but the boundaries nowhere correspond with those of the fields. Three of these fold-courses represent the three manors of the township. The fourth “is fed with the sheepe of one Edmund Newgate and others the Inhabitunts and house holders there. But whether Newgate’s be taken as a folde corse or no we [the jurors] knowe not.”* This arrangement 1 Holkham Maps, No. 1, sketched in the accompanying cut. 2 Duchy of Lancaster, Special Commission, No. 350. The commission and a part of the return have been printed by Hubert Hall, A Formula Book of English Official Historical Documents (2 pts., Cambridge, 1908-09), ii. 17. 3 They are known as North course, Caldowe course, Wheatley’s course (also called Grigg’s), and Newgate’s course. The first includes one-half of the marshes, all of Church field, and a part of South field; the second, a large part of South field and one-half of the Lyng; the third, the remainder of the Lyng, with parts of South field and Stathe field; the fourth, a part of Stathe field and one-half of the marshes. 4 Duchy of Lancaster, Special Commission, No. 350. The jury continues: ‘ No Sketch of a Map of the 1590. Township of Holkham, Norfolk. Boundaries of Fold Courses Parte of the Common Marsh Newgate’s Fold / Chureht+ f Field Close A North Fold 1 t ' 1 1 1 ' 1 1 H ' ' ' ’ 1 { | i] | 1 H L wy Li) 4 Caldowe | oe eae: Ls Map XVII 327 328 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS can only imply that each of the four flocks of sheep always had at its disposal about one-fourth of the unimproved land of the township, and after harvest time could also be pastured over such of the arable as lay within the bounds of its fold-course. If we should try to picture the arable of any course as comprised within one of the three fields, we should at once see that such an arrangement would not have permitted the flock of the course in question to fare the same in winter-wheat years as in fallow ones. At times all of the course would have been under crops, at times all of it fallow. If stubble fodder was always to be available for each of several flocks of a township, a system different from the typical three-field one must have been evolved. Within each fold-course some parcels of land must have been under winter crops, others under spring crops, and others fallow. The actual situation is disclosed in an indenture of 26 Eliza- beth that conveyed the Holkham manor called Nealds, alias Lucas.!. This manor, we are told, consisted of 25 acres which formed the site of the manor-house, 234 acres in South field, 67 in Church field, and 88 in Stathe field. Appurtenant to these lands were certain common rights of pasture, viz.: — (a) ‘ Item a Liberty of Fould course and Fouldage and shacke with shepe in the southe fielde of Holkham [but, as the map shows, by no means over the entire South field]. (b) ‘““Item a common of pasture . . . for horse, neate, and sheepe-at all tymes in the year in fourteen score acres lyinge in the southe parte of Holkham Common Lynge. [This area and the preceding comprised “‘ Caldowe fold course ”’ on the map.| (c) “Item another common of pasture .. . in all tymes of the year for horse, neate, and swyne in all the commons of Holk- ham aforesayde. (d) ‘‘ Item another common of pasture . . . for horse, neate, and swyne [but not for sheep] uppon all the feilds, grounds, and marshes within Holkham aforesaid lyinge freshe and unsowne man ought to kepe or mainteyne any folde corse within the marshe. But of late there is one Edmund Newgate taketh upon [him] to kepe five hundred shepe there whereas before tyme his Grandfather and others Kepte not above two hundred yet there upon theire privat marshe.”’ 1 Holkham Records, uncatalogued. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 329 yearly from the feaste of St. Mychael the archeAngell or the ende of harveste until the annunciation of our Ladye or untill suche tyme before the sayde feaste . . . as the said feilds and grounds be sowen agayne.” From this it is clear that all the village cattle ranged over the entire common waste throughout the year and over the unsown fields from October to February. From February to October they had no access to the fallow arable, which was reserved for the various flocks of sheep. Each flock of sheep, furthermore, never passed beyond the bounds of its fold-course; within this course it was presumably folded from day to day over the fallow acres. Since in all probability wattles were used, no inconven- ience arose if sown and fallow acres lay side by side. Hence came the flexible, particularist, more modern system that was employed in the days of George Elmdon. It was an arrange- ment far better for the soil than was that of the midlands, since by it each parcel of arable was assured of fertilization during the fallow season. Some of the thriftless convenience of the mid- land system may have been sacrificed, but superior agricultural method and profitable sheep-raising were compensations. Touching the subjects discussed above — the distribution of the parcels of a holding throughout the arable area of the town- ship and the rotation of crops practiced upon them — we should like testimony from an earlier time than the end of the sixteenth century, and we happily find it in various items that carry back a little the regime of insignificant fields and three-course hus- bandry. Most numerous are data relating to Holkham. This township, it will be remembered, revealed on the map of 1591 a large South field and two smaller fields to the north next the sea, called Church or West field and Stathe or North field. That the distribution of a tenant’s acres among these three fields had for a long time been unequal, becomes apparent from an examina- tion of several earlier terriers. In 26 Elizabeth the manor of “‘Nealds ” allotted its arable to the three in the proportion of 233, 66, and 87 acres respectively,! while in 3 Edward VI the apportionment of the lands of Edward Newgate was 13, 7, and 1 Holkham Records, uncatalogued. 330 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS 55 acres.!. In a terrier of ‘‘ Pomffrett ” lands drawn up in 30 Henry VIII the subdivision was 16, 23, and 6 acres.2. In 2 Henry VII Sir Thomas Briggs’s manor of Hillhall was so situated that 132 acres lay in North field, 45 in Church field, and 390 in South field. The same manor was smaller in 17 Edward IV, and of its parcels 128 acres were in North field, with 68 in Stathe field, 33 in Church field, and 105 in South field.t The nearest approach to an equal division of acres in the fifteenth-century Holkham terriers is the assignment of 19 acres of Galfridus Por- ter’s holding to South field and 17 to North field;* but in a con- temporary conveyance of 39 Henry VI the 50 acres which John Newgate transferred to his son Thomas lay almost entirely in the northeastern part of the village arable area.6 The distribution of the acres of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century holdings among the fields of Holkham thus seems to have been chronically irregular. For discovering what rotation of crops was favored in fifteenth- century Norfolk a Holkham charter of 20 September, 16 Richard II, is of value.” In an exchange of lands, John and Isabell Lyng ‘“invenerunt terras seisonatas ut inferius patet, vidz.: i acra in crofta de terra frista semel arata non compostata, lili acre dimidia in campo australi semel arate de terra firista non compostate [fallow, probably to be sown with wheat the next year] ilii acre dimidia in eodem campo que fuerunt cum ordeo anno elapso [seminate] semel arate non compostate [barley stubble, probably to lie fallow for a year] — ili acre in eodem compostate anno elapso non arate [probably sown with wheat in the year past and to be sown with barley in the coming season].”’ Here not only were the 12 acres all in the same field, but they were apparently under a three-course rotation and were manured 1 Holkham Records, uncatalogued. ? Tbid. 3 Holkham Field-book, 75. 4 Thid. 5 Holkham Records, uncatalogued. 6 Holkham Deeds, 2d series, 29. 2 bid:,. 77: THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 331 at least once every three years. ‘The sixteenth-century system is carried back to the end of the fourteenth, and assurance is given regarding the method of fertilization about which later surveys are silent.! Other East Anglian townships furnish early evidence not un- like that from Holkham. In the time of Henry VIII a manor at Scratby is described as comprising, besides 9 acres enclosed, 29 acres in twelve parcels in South field and 16 acres in nine par- cels in North field.2 A Great Massingham terrier of the late fifteenth century enumerates the parcels of three holdings in four unnamed fields.? The respective areas in acres were 83, 85, 33, 74; 9, 68, 32, 68; 22, 23, 13, 13: an irregularity in appor- tionment not to be remedied in any instance by a combination of the last two areas. In 8 Henry V a manor at Ormesby was held by several tenants whose parcels lay principally in North, South, and Little fields, but so unevenly distributed as often to be almost entirely within one field.* At Rockland in 23 Henry VI the manor of Kyrkhall Moynes had its small parcels princi- pally in South and West fields, although there was something in North and Fast fields. Obviously, the distribution of the acres of fifteenth-century holdings among fields was as capricious as in the sixteenth century. Relative to the matter of tillage, a lease of the manor of Bed- dingfield, Suffolk, dated 19 Richard II, instructs us as to how certain lands there were sown. Eleven acres were in wheat, of which two were “‘ compostate,” two were fallow, six sown with barley, eight with peas, thirteen with oats.6 Whether these acres were open or enclosed we do not learn, but the small num- ber left fallow points to a husbandry almost as far advanced for 1 The few other Holkham transfers of the fourteenth century which take the trouble to mention fields are regardless of exact division. Such is the case with 3 acres which in 4 Edward III were in two pieces in South field, and with 6 acres of which in 2 Edward II at least 42 were in South field (Holkham Deeds, 2d series, 37, 24). 2 Rents. and Survs., Portf. 12/59. 4 Tbid., 22/54. 3 Tbid., 22/46. 5 Add. MS. 33228. 6 Add. Char. A 3338: “‘ Terra seminata cum frumento xi acre unde ii acre compostate; item terra warecta ii acre; item cum ordeo vi acre; item cum pisa viii acre; item cum avena xiii acre.” 332 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the fourteenth century as was the contemporary Kentish tillage which cultivated all arable acres yearly.' The foregoing testimony of surveys and terriers tends in general to show that Norfolk “ fields’ had from the beginning of the fifteenth century no agricultural significance, and that, although a three-course rotation usually prevailed, it was not dependent upon a three-field system. It may be objected, however, that an earlier system was then in decay, one in which names of fields had more than topographical connotation. Without doubt an old system was in decay in the fifteenth century, but scarcely in the sense intimated. What this earlier situation was must now be explained. With regard to tillage, the custom in East Anglian fields before the sixteenth century was not unlike that practiced by George Elmdon in the days of the Armada. Information on this subject is to be had from extents of Norfolk demesne lands contained in inquisitions post mortem of the first half of the fourteenth cen- tury.2, Sometimes these contain statements which, with change of areas, are like the following from East Bradenham: “Sunt c acre terre arabilis per minus centum de quibus possunt seminari per annum lx et seminate fuerunt ante mortem predicti Rogeri [inquisition dated 16 June, 11 Edward III] et valent per annum xx solidos, pretium acre iiii d. Et totum residuum nihil valet per annum quia iacet ad warectam et in communi.’”’* The signifi- cant information here is that one-third of the demesne land was fallow throughout every third year, and then was of no value, since it layin common. Occasionally the phrase is “‘ in communi campo,” leaving no doubt that the demesne was open common field. The townships about which this could be said lay in eastern as well as in western Norfolk, a fact that fixes the cus- tom upon the entire county.» Although similar remarks about 1 Cf. above, p. 302. 2 Cf. above, p. 46. 3 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 51 (11). 4 “Sunt cxx acre terre arabilis . . . de quibus iiii** acre terre seminabantur hoc anno . . . et residuum iacet ad warectam et in communi campo ”’ (ibid., 51 (10), Newton). 5 Tbid., 46 (3) Gayton, 45 (18) Rainham and Islington, all three in the west of the county; 51 (10) Caistor and Hellesdon, in the center and east. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 333 Suffolk townships are less numerous,! they occur often enough to show that a three-course rotation upon open-field demesne could at this time be found throughout East Anglia.’ Testimony like this, if from midland counties, has been cited as quasi evidence for the existence of a three-field system there.2 Without doubt the presumption is that arable land which was fallow and common every third year lay in three (or six) common fields. Where other evidence, therefore, points to the prevalence of the three-field system, as it does in the mid- lands, a statement like that quoted above may be looked upon as credible testimony that a particular township had three compact open fields. With East Anglia, however, the case is different. There we have seen in the sixteenth century a three-course rotation of crops upon open fields divorced from a three-field system, and a similar situation in the fourteenth century is not improbable. The implication of the phrases in the extents will therefore depend upon other contemporary evidence touch- ing the location of holdings in the open fields. To interpret such evidence we shall have to determine the nature of East Anglian units of villein tenure. Inasmuch as no reference to a virgate, the unit prevalent in the midlands and the north, has thus far been found here, it may be that the omission points to peculiarities of field arrangements, just as the character of the Kentish iugum lay at the base of a unique field system. If so, the nature of the early unit of villein tenure in East Anglia assumes increased importance and demands attention. During the sixteenth century and even at a much later period certain parcels of an East Anglian holding were often said to 1 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 41 (1), Thurston; 41 (19), Monewden, Badmon- disfield, and Lidgate, the last two on the Cambridgeshire border. 2 But it was not universal. At Kettleburgh, in Suffolk, the soil was of poor quality (debilis), “‘ et quolibet anno medietas iacet frisca et iacet in communi per totum annum ”’ (ibid., 51 (2)). More noteworthy was the case of a tenement of sixty acres at Wymondham: “Sunt ibidem Ix acre terre arabilis . . . unde seminabantur hoc anno semine yemali ante mortem predicte Alicie [inquisition, 2 June, 15 Edw. III] xx acre et semine quadragesimali xxx acre. ... Et x acre terre predicte iacent in communi per totum annum quum non seminantur ” (ibid., 65 (13)). Thus it was sometimes customary to fallow only one-sixth of the arable. 3 Cf. above, p. 46. 334 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS belong to one or another “tenementum ’’—to Smith’s tenement, for example, or to Bunting’s. In the fifteenth century all the parcels of a holding could at times be assigned to the tenementa of which they had once formed portions. A tabulation of the acres of two holdings described in a survey of Bawdsey, Suffolk, dated 16 Henry VI, will make this clear, and will show incidentally the insignificant part played by field divisions at that time.! c = Names eter M En- Fes bi In In le ial ving Sitting tenant enementa to whic elle- n Da an the Parcels belonged cloned feld Lyllond | Estfeld Unspec. Thomas Mekilborgh |Alex. Frebner..| .. _ % +P r soe 5 ° * 5 iy : == : H 4 ol a 4 PI Blo QO o > : = & <9 he 2 —~e it wie *) John Godwyn ..... PYEOREE. ohn s ds? | 1 Poris htt si i, 23 2 1 2 Crannok'’...:. as ee nt I Surveys of East Anglian manors dating from the late fourteenth or from the fifteenth century are likely to be cast in a mould much like that of Bawdsey. They point, it is clear, to a still earlier time in which the tenementa were the principal agrarian units of the township, instead of merely serving, as they did in the fifteenth century, for the apportionment of rents and services. In surveys and rentals of the early fourteenth or, better still, of the thirteenth century, the tenementa assume their earlier prominence. Surveys were not then drawn up, as at Bawdsey, under the names of the contemporary tenants who had parcels in different tenementa, but they were arranged according to the tenementa themselves, in each of which the parcels were assigned 1 Add. MS. 23948. 2 With toft. 3 With cottage. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 335 to the tenants of the hour. Nearly always a tenementum was held by several men, who usually had parcels in other tenementa as well. In rentals of the time, too, brief and parsimonious of names as they are, one often finds reference to such items as the tenemen- tum of John Smith “et parcenarii sui” or “et participes sui.”’ One of the most instructive of these earlier surveys is that of Martham, Norfolk, giving as it does a detailed account of field arrangements.!_ Situated near the east coast, this manor of Nor- wich priory was surveyed in 1291, the fourth year of Prior Henry of Lakenham. The villein holdings are described with reference to the tenants who formerly held them, and are then assigned with minute specification to the contemporary tenants. A typical description of one such holding is as follows: — “ Thomas Knight tenuit quondam xii acras terre de villenagio que vocatur i eriung? et reddit inde . . . [services and rents follow]. Sciendum est quod xii acre de villenagio vocantur unum Eriung. Et quilibet tenens unum Eriung faciet in omnibus sicud predictum est de tenemento Thome Knight. Et habentur in Martham xxii Eriung et iii acre de villenagio et omnes isti herciabunt totam terram Ville exceptis terris quesitis ad siligi- nem, avenam, et falihes. De quibus xii acris terre nunc sunt xii tenentes, viz., Martha Knight tenet iii acras et dimidiam de quibus dimidia acra iacet in campo de Martham qui vocatur stickies. Item dimidia acra iacet in eodem campo... . “ ji roda et dimidia iacent in campo qui vocatur Mone- chyiics 27 dimidia acra iacet in Damiottoftes . . . " Srtacra, “1 Fendrovetoites:..°...% f fmbiReda*writhMorgrave ss .\\: i Roda et dimidia iacent in Tofto suo cum mesuagio ... dimidia Roda iacet in Monechyn .. . XXX perticate iacent in eodem campo... “ dimidia Roda iacet in Westfeld . . . XXX perticate iacent in Monechyn .. . 1 Stowe MS. 936, ff. 37-115. 2 An eriung is the Anglo-Saxon term for a ploughing or plough-land. 336 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Johanes Knyght tenet i acram dimidiam et i Rodam terre iacentes in campo de Martham de quibus dimidia acra iacet in Westfeld . . . Item dimidia Roda iacet in Fendrove . . . “ i Roda et dimidia iacent in Estfeld . . . Rev ia Ace se “ -* eodem: campo «i + “ad. “ \iaeet in Estfeld). av. Andreas Knyght tenet i acram et dimidiam et i Rodam terre iacentes in campo de Martham. De quibus dimidia acra iacet in Estfeld .. . Item i Roda iacet in Fendrovetoftes .. . “i “ etdimidia iacent in Tofto suo cum mesuagio ... “ tT “ “ “ “ “ Monechyn Ais ‘vib “adaket in Weshfeld uz .ti Willielmus Anneys tenet i acram de qua dimidia acra iacet in Estfeld .. . Item dimidia acra iacet in Estfeld .. . Beatrix Knight tenet i acram terre de qua dimidia acra iacet in Estfeld .. . Item dimidia acra iacet in eodem campo... Robertus Aleyn tenet i rodam iacentem in campo de Mar- tham qui vocatur Estfeld .. . Robertus Wuc tenet dimidiam acram In Estfeld .. . Hugo Balle f 4 Son pak cae Robertus filius Roberti mercatoris tenet i acram terre de qua dimidia acra iacet in Westfeld .. . Item dimidia Roda iacet in eodem campo. . . Item i Roda et dimidia iacent in Fendrovetoftes .. . Willielmus Folpe tenet i Rodam et dimidiam iacentes in Estfeld .. 2 Willielmus Godrich tenet i Rodam et dimidiam iacentes in Estfeld .. . Et omnes isti tenentes reddunt servicia pro pleno Eriung sicut fecit Thomas Knight in tempore suo.” ! Relative to a holder of ‘‘mulelond”’ the record runs,? “‘ William Hereman tenuit quondam vi acras terre que vocantur Mulelond 1 Stowe MS. 936, f. 39. 2 Thid., f. 70b. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 33,7. pro xvi d. de Redditu [obligations follow] . . . De quibus nunc sunt ix tenentes,’”’ whose holdings are detailed as before. There seems to have been no unit of mulelond, since the holdings of the ‘“‘ former tenants’? contained a variable number of acres. Similarly, the socage land is referred to “former tenants” in varying amounts, and these holdings too had been parcelled out among contemporary tenants. In the case of the villein eriung of Thomas Knight it is easy to see that the existing situation had come about through a sub- division of the twelve-acre holding among heirs.'' Four tenants still bore the name of Knight and had the largest shares in the eriung, together retaining seven and three-fourths acres of it. They may have been three or four generations removed from the ancestor who gave his name to the holding. If so, Thomas Knight lived in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century. After this introduction to a thirteenth-century Norfolk survey, we may proceed in our inquiry regarding field systems. If the foregoing references to the East and West fields of Martham suggest that a two-field system prevailed there at the end of the thirteenth century, its existence should be revealed in the distribution between these fields of the acres of the old units. Since at Martham the villein eriungs were the holdings most invariable in size, being always in theory twelve acres, they should be looked upon as the standard units and most likely to be evenly divided between fields. The condition of a few typical holdings, villein and other, is pictured in the following table: — xo) io 8 West Field East Field Former Tenant Su Z| oa sf ay 4) 8 = (“ tenuit quondam ”’) Tenure = S eI = 2 3 8 S| goo ae go8 ag | Be | ee 3°29) 58 |} 28o5|ses| £5 | S54], 85 182 ) 68 Za) Ze |tO4|4Z80| dag | 2Zda| da | Sc | Thomas Knight .... | villein 12 2 3 6 13 15 64 3t 12 Thomas Knight .... | socage 3 ° ° ° 8 3 rs 3% Humfridus de Sco .. | socage 10 7 to} 5 3 3 13 2} 142 Hunfridus de Sco .. | villein 4 ° ° 8 14 ° ° 2 2} Syware filius Galfridi | villein 18 ° Sy 24 qh I 4 3 11} Syware filius Galfridi | socage ° ° 3 7 24 3 z 3 4 Stephanus Byl ..... villein 3 I } ° fo) 9 33 I 5 Nicholas Haral ..... mulelond 3 I 3 ° ° 9 a 4 63 1 That socage and villein holdings in East Anglia were ever subject to partible transmission seems to have escaped the notice of legal historians. 338 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS From the table it is clear that the holding of no “ former tenant ” was divided equally between the two fields, and this is true whether land of all tenures be considered or, as is more to the point, whether attention be confined to villein land. Even in the midlands free land was not always very evenly apportioned among fields. That the Norfolk villein eriung, however, the unit which corresponded with the evenly-divided midland virgate, should show an indifference to equal division between “ fields,” and an inclination to lie largely in one of them, is significant. It implies that the East and West fields had no agrarian impor- tance at the time when the eriung took form. To know just how the parcels of an eriung lay in relation to one another would be information well worth having. Unfor- tunately, they are described in the Martham survey as they had come to appear in the hands of the numerous tenants of 1291. How many there were and how related when the “ former tenants ”’ held them we are left to puzzle out from the incom- plete boundaries that are given. The description of one of the half-eriungs which lay entirely in the West field is substantially as follows: — Wm Godhey tenuit quondam vi acras de vilenage pro dimidio Eriung. De quibus sunt nunc xi tenentes, viz.:! Robert Koc, messuage and two tofts; 13 roods next Osbertus Harald on the north; 13, Simon Koc N; 2, Walter de Scoutone W; 2, Thomas Mome W. Robert de Hyl 13, Alan de Syk W. Richard Mercator 1; John clericus:-E;.-.2,-- Theos: Mogge W; 3, Robert Koc S. Simon Koc 3, Roger Mercator S. Osbertus Harald 2 , Robert Koc S; 25 poles, Rob’t Koc S. Beatrix Harald 25 poles, Osbertus Harald S. Simon Cok 1 , Robert Koc S. Walter de Scoutone 23, Robert de Hill E. 1 The neighbor on one side of each parcel is specified, as, for example, “‘ iuxta Osbertus Harald ex parte aquilonari,’”’ but the parcel is not completely bounded. The abbreviated locations which follow should all be read in this way, the areas being in roods unless otherwise specified. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 339 Alan de Syk 13, Robert de Hill E. Alexander de Sco 2 , Robert Koc E. Robert filius Willielmi Webbester 10 poles, Robert Koc S. From this description it is pretty clear that many of these parcels lay not only in the same field but also side by side. Such were the parcels of Robert Koc and Osbertus Harald, of Robert Koc and Simon Cok, of Robert de Hyl and Alan de Syk. One begins to suspect that the six acres of William Godhey’s half- eriung were after all not necessarily much separated one from another. Since the Martham descriptions are somewhat incon- clusive in this respect, we turn to another survey that furnishes what is perhaps our best evidence relative to the appearance of the original East Anglian villein tenementum. This survey, which is incomplete at beginning and end, relates to Wymondham, a township southwest from Norwich, and is written in a hand of the time of Henry VII.!. Although many descriptions are not detailed and others break off with the state- ment that the residue of the tenementum is in the hands of the lord, certain of them are, none the less, instructive. The tene- menta were by no means so subdivided in the fifteenth century as were those at Martham in the thirteenth. If this should lead one to suspect that no great period of time had elapsed since they were in the hands of their original tenant, the suspicion would be dispelled by the discovery that not one of the existing tenants of a tenementum bore its name as his surname, after the manner of the Knights who continued to share in Thomas Knight’s eriung at Martham. The tenementum here, as there, probably goes back at least to the thirteenth century. More ancient than that it can scarcely have been, if we may judge from such names as Toly, Crisping, Caly, and Davys. The novel feature about these Wymondham tenementa is that they can in some instances be shown to have been nearly com- pact areas: — ““Tenementum Toly iuxta Grishaugh continet 1 mesuagium, xi acras, iv Rodas terre . ... Unde 1 Land. Rev., M. B. 206, ff. 188-215. 340 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Thomas Knyght alias Kette tenet dictum mesuagium, ix acras, lii Rodas terre . . . iacentes iuxta Grishaugh Ricardus Deynes tenet ii acras pasture inclausas . . . abut- tantes . . . super Grishaugh versus austrum.”’. . .! Here the entire tenement bordered upon “ Grishaugh ”’ and can- not have been in more than two parcels at most. “Tenementum Havercroft continet xiiii acras terre et bosci cum mesuagio vacante, Unde Thomas Caly tenet totum tenementum iacens in partrike- feld .... Edwardus Groote tenet inde ii acras terre in Cobaldisfeld.”’ ? Six-sevenths of this tenement lay in “ partrikefeld,”’ a feature in which it resembled one of its neighbors. “ Tenementum Ricardi Aleyn continet 1 mesuagium edifica- tum et xxxii acras et dimidiam terre, Unde Galfridus Symond tenet dictum mesuagium ac xxvi acras et dimidiam terre, pasture, et subbosci in parkrykefeld . . . Johanis Caly tenet v acras terre . . . ineodem campo... Thomas Cooke alias Blexter tenet unum inclusum infra mesuagium suum vocatum Benecroft ... et continet i acram ili Rodas Item tenet unam Rodam dicti tenementi iuxta Benecroft.’’® Practically all of this tenement lay in “‘ partrikefeld.”’ Finally a small holding is briefly dismissed as follows: — ““Tenementum Pering continens lili acras terre in una pecia restat in manu domini.” 4 These four illustrations, which are particularly comprehensible since subdivision is slight and locations are traceable, make it certain that the early tenementum was at times a nearly com- pact area. Three of the above tenementa were relatively large, and two of these lay almost entirely in a single “‘ field.””, Some non-adjacent parcels there may, of course, have been in this field, as descriptions of other tenementa imply was at times the case. The twenty-four acres of “‘ Tenementum Cobalds,”’ forexample, all of which except two acres were held by Thomas Neker, lay “ in 1 Land Rev., M. B. 206, f. 208. 2 Ibid., f£. 209. 3 Tbid., f. 210. 4 Tbid. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 341 diversis peciis in Cabaldisfeld, partrikfeld, et Domiham hallfeld.”’ In general, however, the details of this survey reinforce the im- pression got from the half-eriung of William Godhey at Martham. So far as we can ascertain the appearance of the original tene- mentum in Norfolk, it seems to have been either a compact area or a group of not widely separated parcels. After examining above the appearance of a sixteenth-century Norfolk holding, we proceeded to inquire into the pasturage arrangements of that date and found them based upon so-called fold-courses.1_ A division of each township was set off as the fold-course for a certain flock, and over the part of this which lay fallow in any year the flock was folded from February to October. Since the thirteenth-century tenementa were quite as regardless of a three-field disposition of their parcels as were the sixteenth-century holdings, we shall expect to find in early docu- ments pasturage arrangements not unlike those which later prevailed. Useful information touching this point is given in a series of extents and custumals drawn up in 1278 and referring to the manors of the bishop of Ely, several of which were in Norfolk and Suffolk. Three items in particular relate to methods of tillage. First of all, it appears that the tenant of a full villein holding was bound to carry manure for the lord and spread it upon the fields. Sometimes he carried for a half-day, some- times he drew five or six cartloads, and once, it is estimated, the labor occupied all the tenants for a week.2 Evidently stabling of stock and manuring of fields were to some degree practiced. Such a device, however, was not the chief reliance for main- taining the fertility of the soil. As in the sixteenth century, this 1 Cf. above, p. 325 sq. 2 “Ttem iste cariabit fimum domini per dimidiam diem semel inanno.... Et quotiens opus fuerit sparget fimum a mane usque ad horam nonam . .. . ”’ (Cott. MS., Claud. C XI, f. 221, Derham, Norfolk). ‘ Et debent cariare quindecim mun- cellos composti in quoscunque campos dominus voluerit pro uno opere. Unde duo moncelli vel tres facient unam carectatam ”’ (ibid., f. 259, Glemsford, Suffolk). “Et iste et omnes pares sui cariabunt totum compostum domini per unam septi- mam ad festum Sancti Michaelis... . Et quod cariaverint debent spargere ” (ibid., f. 2436, Bridgham, Norfolk). 342 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS end was achieved by the folding of sheep and cattle upon arable fallow, a usage likewise revealed by the custumals. On many manors the tenant of villein land had to make wattles and carry them about. Often he furnished five with ten supports and moved them at least once a year.!. Such procedure, it may be said, refers merely to the demesne acres upon which the sheep of tenant and lord were folded together. In certain instances it is indeed specifically declared that the tenants’ sheep shall lie “in falda domini’’ throughout the year and the cattle from Pentecost to Michaelmas.* Had this always been the case, an enclosed demesne might account for the requisitions, and we need assume no unusual field system. It is the third item of the extents that forces us to believe that the system was unique. This item specifies the payment of “ faldagium.” ‘“ Et dabit de faldagio ad Gulam Augusti per annum pro quolibet bove unum denarium. Pro qualibet vacca sterili unum denarium. Pro qualibet vacca cum vitulo duos denarios. Et pro qualibet iu- venca duorum annorum vel pro quolibet Bovecto eiusdem etatis unum obulum. Et pro quinque ovibus unum denarium. Et ideo nec oves sue nec averia sua iacere debent in falda domini.”’ * The payment of foldage according to this scale exempted the tenant’s sheep and cattle from being folded with those of his lord over the demesne acres. Upon several manors, especially in Suffolk, the tenant had no obligation either to fold sheep or to pay if he did not, the custom being that “ oves sue non iacebunt in falda domini.” 4 In the Ramsey cartulary the same privilege is recorded in slightly different phrase. That the villein ‘‘ habet suam faldam,”’ or at least had it during a part of 1 “ Et dabit decem palos et quinque cleyas falde sine cibo. ... Et portabit quinque cleyas falde domini et totidem palos semel in anno de uno campo in alium sine cibo . . .” (Cott. MS., Claud. C XI, f. 2436, Bridgham). 2 “ Oves sue iacebunt in falda domini per totum annum preter oves matrices tempore agnilis. ... Et omnia alia averia sua iacebunt in falda domini a pentecoste usque ad festum Sancti Martini preter vaccas. . . . Et boves similiter iacebunt in falda domini inter pentecostem et festum omnium sanctorum si non dederit cupam pro eis ut supradictum est ”’ (ibid.). 3 Tbid., f. 2216, Derham. 4 Ibid., f. 259, Glemsford; f. 265, “‘Herthirst”’; f. 272, Rattlesden; f. 279), Hitcham; f. 2886, Barking; f. 296b, Wetheringsett; f. 303, Brandon. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 343 the year, was a custom there in the twelfth as well as in the thirteenth century.! How, we may now ask, could a tenant’s privilege of having his own fold be realized ? Under a system of enclosures there would have been no difficulty, but in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries East Anglian fields were largely open. Assume now that the arable of a township was divided into two or three (four or six) compact divisions cultivated like those of the midlands. There it was the practice for sheep and cattle to roam over the entire field which lay fallow, the lord’s acres (if in open field) and the tenants’ acres sharing alike. If under such a system tenant or lord were to have had “‘ sua falda,” he would have been obliged to hedge about his parcels with wattles, thereby sacrific- ing the prime advantage secured by the compact fallow field — the freedom from attending much to the wandering sheep and cattle. Since one aim of the midland system was to attain this convenience, we do not hear about the use of wattles in midland open fields or about any tenant having “ sua falda.” Apply again the privilege of “ sua falda’ to such a field sys- tem as was practiced in Norfolk in the sixteenth century. There the flock of each manor had in the township a definite area, apart from unploughed pasture and waste, over which it had rights. Beyond this area it did not pass, and within it some parcels were fallow and some were sown each year. To protect the growing corn wattles must have been necessary. Since the lord’s flock had to be kept from the cultivated acres and folded upon the parcels of fallow until harvest time, the complexity would in no wise have been increased if the tenant were to employ the same pro- cedure relative to his acres. He, too, like his lord, might well have had some of his parcels under crops, and others fallow with his sheep folded upon them. The villein’s privilege of having “sua falda,” recorded in the Ely cartulary, thus accords en- tirely with the Norfolk method of pasturing sheep, but not at all with that of the midlands. That it is noted in the twelfth- and thirteenth-century documents argues for the early existence 1 Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia (ed. W. H. Hart, Rolls Series, 3 vols., 1884-93), i. 423, lili. 261, 262, 264. ; 344 “ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS of the East Anglian system, and the case is strengthened by the divergence manifested in the customs of the manors of Ramsey abbey. No one of the long list of the midland possessions of that abbey possessed the privilege of independent foldage. Yet, as we have seen,! the two Norfolk manors had _ it, and the selection of them for such a favor suggests that they were in a condition to take advantage of it as the others were not. Pasturage arrangements adopted in East Anglia thus concur with the disposition of the parcels of a tenementum relative to the fields, in pointing to a unique field system. Such descrip- tions of this system as have so far been utilized are, except for certain items in regard to foldage, not earlier than the late thir- teenth century. It remains to inquire whether it is possible to discover at what time the tenementa took form. If we were to judge from names alone, we should not assign them to a period earlier than the thirteenth century. It is easy to see that the land which, in the Martham survey of 1291, Thomas Knight is said to have held (quondam tenuit) would soon be known as Knight’s tenementum, that the socage land would become Knight’s free tenementum, and the eriung Knight’s vil- lein or bond tenementum. Thomas Knight, himself, as we have seen, must have lived either in the early thirteenth century or at the end of the twelfth. The names which attached themselves to the tenementa at Wymondham and at Baudsey often included surnames, as in the case of “‘ tenementum Ricardi Aleyn, or “tenementum Alexandri Frebnere.”’ Since villeins seldom bore surnames before the thirteenth century, the nomenclature of the surveys would seem to assign the tenementum to a period not much earlier than this. Even if the names of the tenementa did not much antedate 1200, there is reason for thinking that the unit itself was older, though not always, to be sure, under the name ‘‘ tenemen- tum.”’ This term became usual only in the fourteenth century, and Thomas Knight’s holding, though referred to as a tenemen- tum, properly bore the infrequent Anglo-Saxon designation 1 Cf. above, p. 342. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 345 eriung.!. In the thirteenth century the units of villein tenure often assumed other names. “ Plena terra’ was much in favor. The excellent series of Ely extents already quoted frequently employs this phrase and attaches to it, as to a unit, the enumera- tion of villein services. Its area was uniform within the same manor. At Walpole it contained 30 acres; at Walton, 24; at Feltwell, 20; at Northwold, 48; at Terrington, 24.2, Sometimes no name at all was given to the full villein holding. The Ely manor of Emneth leaves unnamed its unit of 23 acres,? and the Ramsey cartulary finds no term to apply to holdings “ in lan- cectagio.”’ 4 At this point it will be of assistance to note the way in which Norfolk manors are treated by this cartulary in its two series of extents, one from the middle of the twelfth century, the other from the middle of the thirteenth.» Ramsey had only two con- siderable manors in Norfolk — Brancaster and Ringstead — whereas in the midlands she had many. In the latter the villein holdings were always denominated virgates, and the enumeration of virgates is usually lengthy. At Ringstead, however, as we learn, “‘ Non sunt ibi hydae, vel virgatae terrae. Aestimantur, tamen, quod ibi sint quinque hydae terrae praeter dominicum.” At Brancaster, ‘‘ Ibidem sunt decem hydae. Nescitur, quot vir- gatae faciunt hydam, nec quot acrae faciunt virgatam.” ® Far- ther on we are told that three of the Brancaster hides were villein land. The extents which thus deny the existence of virgates 1 The word occurs in an important passage in the Ramsey cartulary. Cf. below, p. 348. 2 Cott. MS., Claud. C XI, ff. 192, 199, 254, 2580, 182. 3 Tbid., f. 206. 4 In this cartulary such is the usual designation for villein land. ‘‘ Gilbertus Potekyn . . . recognovit viginti quatuor acras terrae, quas tenet de domino Abbate, esse lancectagium Abbatis, et quod debent omnes consuetudines serviles, salvo corpore suo ” (court roll of 1239, Cartulary of Ramsey Abbey, i. 424). 5 In the first series we find that ‘‘ Eadwinus de Depedale tenuit in diebus Regis Henrici, et nunc tenet . . .”’ (ibid., iii. 261); many extents of the second series are dated 1250-1252. Unlike the tenants in the second series, those in the earlier one usually have no surnames, and their names have a more archaic Saxon or Danish character than was usual a century later. 6 Ibid., i. 405, 413. 346 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS and are somewhat vague about hides date from about 1240 to 1250.! From the absence of the term virgate, however, it does not follow that units of villein holding were non-existent. On the contrary, the uniformity in size which characterized holdings “ in lansectagio’”’ both at Brancaster and at Ringstead points con- clusively to a recognition of such units. At Brancaster the three villein hides in the thirteenth-century extent were constituted as follows: 38 holdings of 12 acres each, 17 of 24 acres, two of 60 acres, two of 30 acres, and four of 15 acres. In the extent of a century earlier we find 39 holdings of 12 acres each, one of 32 acres, three of 16 acres, and two of 18 acres. Obviously at both periods the unit was 12 or 24 acres. At Ringstead the holdings — were less symmetrical. In the thirteenth century there were 13 holdings of 10 acres, two of 14, and single holdings of 28, 22, 12,8, and 7 acres. In the twelfth century there were ten eight- acre holdings, with one of 12 and one of 11 acres. The unit seems to have shifted from eight to ten acres and the total villein land to have increased considerably. Mr. Hudson notes the existence of similar unnamed units of villein land in two extents which he publishes. In the manor of Banham in 1281, out of 32 customary tenants who together held 244 acres of arable, seven had 7 acres each and five others had multiples of 7; in the manor of Bradcar in Shropham six customary tenants in 1298 had 8 acres each and the seventh had 6 acres.” If Norfolk units of villein tenure, even though unnamed, seem to have existed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, it may appear fanciful to insist upon the absence of the term virgate in descriptions of them. They might well enough, it will be said, have been called virgates or half-virgates. By midland extent- makers, indeed, the terms were sometimes applied to the Nor- 1 Neither extent is dated, but none in the series bears a date later than 1252. That of Ringstead is followed by a court roll of 1240, which seems to be later than the extent, for in it Stephanus Clericus recognizes that he holds his land “ in lan- seagio,’’ a dependence which has not been admitted in the extent (Cartulary of Ramsey Abbey, i. 411). ? William Hudson, “ Three Manorial Extents of the Thirteenth Century,” Nor- folk and Norwich Archaeol. Soc., Norfolk Archaeology, xiv. 11, 8. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 347 folk unit as they were not by the resident Norfolk population. Accustomed as men of the midlands were to calling the full vil- lein holding a virgate, they not unnaturally persisted in the usage when they came to speak of East Anglia. There are several instances in the Ely cartulary.!_ Usually it is made clear that the term is merely a substitute for the “ plena terra,” which turns into a virgate under our eyes. At Derham, as at several other places, the customary tenants who hold plenae terrae (‘‘ de operariis plenas terras tenentibus ’’) are forthwith called virgate- holders.? That this use of “ virgate’”’ was, however, imported rather than native seems conclusive from the usage of two large groups of early documents, records which, drawn up within the county, furnish most of our information regarding early units of land- holding. These are the feet of fines and the Domesday returns. In the fines of midland counties the virgate constantly recurs. In Norfolk and Suffolk, however, an examination of several hundred of the earliest fines reveals the term only in connection with one village, Walsoken, which, situated on the Cambridge- shire border in the fen country, was organized by virgates, like its midland neighbors.* The Domesday usage is the same: in connection with no East Anglian manor except Walsoken is the term virgate used to designate a villein holding.‘ ’ 1 The Ramsey cartulary also once uses the term virgate in connection with the two Norfolk manors, but this happens in a brief summary of all the manors of the abbey in which the attribution of hides and virgates brooks no interruption. Since this summary is contemporary with the detailed thirteenth-century extents which explicitly declare that virgates are unknown in Brancaster and Ringstead, it is obvious that the virgates crept in through hasty cataloguing. ‘‘ At Brancaster 40 acres make a virgate, 4 virgates make a hide; at Ringstead 30 acres make a virgate, 4 virgates make a hide ” (Cartulary of Ramsey Abbey, iii. 213). 2 Cott. MS., Claud. C XI, ff. 221 (Derham), 233b (Shipham), 209 (Pelham), 248 (Bridgham). 3 “ De dimidia virgata terre et de tertia parte dimidie virgate terre’ (Pedes Finium, Case 154, no. 180, 4 John). 4 As printed by the Pipe Roll Society, two other fines mention virgates: one from Riston is concerned ‘“‘ de duabus virgatis terrae et dimidia et tribus bovatis terrae (Feet of Fines, xvii. 22); the other, from Upton, relates to a dispute between Stephanus de Ludington and Robert le Wile “de i virgata terrae”’ (ibid., 35). These fines are in all probability wrongly assigned by the Public Record Office cataloguer to Norfolk. They date from the first year of Richard’s reign, when 348 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS This peculiarity of nomenclature, this avoidance of the name appropriate to the midland unit, is thus at once early and per- sistent. It points to some fundamental difference between the East Anglian and the midland servile holding, a difference that can hardly have lain in the nature of the services exacted from the respective tenants; for, although East Anglian obliga- tions seem in general to have been lighter than those of the mid- lands, they were similar in kind. May not divergent field systems have been reflected in the usage ? Just as the Kentish unit avoided the midland name because the iugum was essentially unlike the virgate, may not the East Anglian eriung, plena terra, or tenementum have done so for the same reason ? Besides emphasizing the early distinction between midland and East Anglian field systems, the above excursus into nomen- clature has disclosed something about the earliest appearance of the East Anglian unit. A villein holding, the area of which was uniform in a given township, is revealed in the Ely extents of the thirteenth century, where, too, it is nearly always named. It is discernible, though unnamed, in the Ramsey extents of the twelfth century. In the same century, however, the unit some- times assumed the name by which it was later designated at Martham; for in an extent of Stephen’s time there is record of a holding of three “ ariunges,” our earliest specific reference to an East Anglian unit of villein tenure.t. For Domesday is non- committal. Frequently as it speaks of iuga or virgates in other counties, in the description of Norfolk and Suffolk (except at Walsoken) it carefully avoids reference to any units except hides and acres. Since the acres of the survey are never parcelled out to the villeins on a manor, we cannot tell whether there existed in 1086 the unnamed units which had taken form at Ringstead and Brancaster some seventy-five years later. the name of the county is often missing from the fine, as is the case in both these instances. There is another Riston in Yorkshire (a land of bovates) and there are several other Uptons. The Upton in question was probably not far from Luddington, with which Stephen was connected. Of the three Luddingtons in England not one is in or near Norfolk. On the other hand, Luddington in Lincoln- shire is only some twenty miles distant from an Upton in the same county. 1 Cartulary of Ramsey Abbey, iii. 285. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 349 At this point our evidence fails, leaving us in the twelfth cen- tury with an East Anglian unit of villein tenure which did not exactly resemble either the midland virgate or the Kentish iugum. It was not, like the former, a group of small arable strips divided evenly between two or three fields; nor is it certain that it was always, like the latter, a compact area. At Wymondham a few tenementa were more or less compact, and at Martham several of the strips of an eriung seem to have been not far distant from one another. Yet, as shown by the thirteenth-century survey of the latter township, the large number of strips in the eriung and the probable disparateness of some of them make us hesitate to believe that as a rule the eriung assumed the form of an un- divided parcel of land. Probably it was sometimes compact, sometimes a group of not widely-scattered parcels. At times it resembled the Kentish iugum; at other times it was such a hold- ing as a Kentish tenant would have had after the subdivision of iuga had begun, many of his parcels still lying in the ancestral iugum, while others, which had been acquired, were dispersed throughout neighboring iuga. In what way can such an aspect of the East Anglian eriung or tenementum be explained ? Was this unit affliated more with the virgate of the midland system or with the iugum of the Kentish system ? Before answering this question, we must give attention to the intimate connection which existed between the location of the parcels of the tenementum and the pasturage arrangements prevalent in East Anglia. The early custumals, we have noticed, usually record whether a tenant had or had not his own fold (sua falda), whether he might or might not pasture his sheep upon his own fallow acres. It may be that the atten- tion which they give to this matter points to a greater develop- ment of sheep-raising in East Anglia than elsewhere in England; it is more likely, however, that it signifies a superiority in agri- culture. Arable fallow was naturally better fertilized when sheep were folded regularly upon it than when the township herd and flock wandered aimlessly over it every second or third year, as they did in the midlands. 350 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS But to comprehend East Anglian pasturage arrangements one has to consider another factor than agricultural method, namely, the manor. Throughout the midlands, as Maitland pointed out, manor and township tended to coincide.!. Even if there chanced to be two or more manors in a township, they all adapted themselves to the two- or three-field system precisely as did a single comprehensive manor: demesne horses, cattle, and sheep roamed over the waste and over the fallow field along with the beasts of the tenants. In East Anglia, however, the existence of several manors within a township was the rule rather than the exception, a rule, indeed, which tended to be almost universal.2 Furthermore, as we have seen, the manors of a township insisted upon individuality in pasturage arrangements. Except during the autumn and winter seasons, the flock of sheep which each maintained was not allowed to range over the un- sown lands with the flocks belonging to the other manors of the township; it was restricted to its own fold-course, where it en- joyed exclusive privileges. Such particularism, antagonistic as it was to action by the whole township, proved irreconcilable with the practice of the two- and three-field system of tillage.* It thus appears that pasturage arrangements in East Anglia, so far as they had to do with fold-courses, were bound up with the co-existence of two or more manors within a township. If we may assume that fold-courses were as ancient as the manors to which they appertained, it becomes possible to form conjec- tures about the time of their origin. The petty manors of East Anglia are everywhere apparent in Domesday Book.‘ In that record, too, Norfolk and Suffolk boast of many ‘‘ commended ” (i. e. slightly attached) freemen, to whom may naturally be 1 Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 22, 129. ? Ibid., p. 23. Miss Davenport notes that in 1086 in the hundred of Depwade, Norfolk, every township with possibly one exception was held of more than one lord (Norfolk Manor, p. 7). 3 Whether this particularism in pasturage had any connection with the deter- mination of what constituted a manor in East Anglia cannot be here discussed, but in view of the vexed state of this latter question the consideration of such a possibility is not unworthy of attention. * Of the 659 Domesday manors of Suffolk, 294 are rated at less than one carucate and only 70 at five or more carucates. Cf. Victoria History of Suffolk, i. 369. THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM 351 referred, the other feature peculiar to East Anglian pasturage arrangements — the privilege, namely, of independent foldage. From the character of the Domesday record, therefore, it seems possible to infer that the fold-courses of petty manors and the particularist foldage of certain tenants may have been existent prior to 1086. We may now return to the question of the origin and affhliation of the eriung or tenementum. The foregoing digression relative to the pasturage arrangements of East Anglia has served to sug- gest a connection between the agrarian system there developed and the small manors and numerous freemen of pre-Domesday times. May there not also have been a connection between these same manors and the East Anglian unit of villein tenure ? The hypothesis deserves consideration, despite the difficulties which it at once encounters. For two views are current regard- ing the general relationship to the manor of the Anglo-Saxon unit of villein tenure. In the opinion of some writers this unit antedated the manor and represented the original holding of one of the households of a free village community; when the manor was imposed upon this community, the holdings suffered change of status, not change of form.!. The contrary opinion is that the persistent uniformity in the size of these holdings within a town- ship points to a landlord’s activity.2 Without discussing this question in its wider bearings, or accepting the latter opinion in the form in which it was stated by Seebohm, we may here note that a fusion of the two views offers a tenable hypothesis relative to the origin of the East Anglian tenementum. This unit, as has been explained, often in the thirteenth cen- tury assumed the appearance which a Kentish holding took on at some time after the disintegration of the iuga had set in. Assume, now, that there were once in East Anglia units like the Kentish iuga. Assume that they were divided among heirs and that some of the new tenants acquired parcels in other iuga, as they did in Kent. Assume, finally, that while the new holdings were in this condition a manorial system was imposed upon them. 1 Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 337-338. 2 Seebohm, English Village Community, pp. 176-178, 419. 352 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS It would be natural for the new lords to desire uniformity of size in the units from which rents and services would henceforth be due. What more natural, then, than that they should discard the antiquated and perhaps forgotten iuga and assess their tenants on the basis of actual holdings ? To equalize the areas of these holdings so as to make them full units or half-units it would only be necessary to shift a few parcels here and there. Some holdings may have been found compact and may have been left so. The outcome of such a readjustment would be tenementa and eriungs like those met with in the thirteenth century. Conjectural as this hypothesis is, it explains more simply than any other the aspect and characteristics of the East Anglian unit of villein tenure. If it be accepted, the tenemen- tum becomes a derivative of the Kentish iugum, the result of an arrest in its disintegration and the making permanent for a time of the stage of decline then reached. There remains the question whether any unusual event in East Anglian history may have contributed to the break-up of an ancient iugum and perhaps have had something to do with the formation of the manorial system which, in accordance with the foregoing hypothesis, created the new units and the new pasturage arrangements. For answer there must be further resort to conjecture. Domesday Book, as has been noted, shows us that the petty manors and numerous freeholds of East Anglia were in existence earlier than 1086. That these features are in no wise to be attributed to the Norman Conquest is apparent from the assumption of the survey that the conditions which it describes go back, in general at least, to the time of the Confessor. Before this date the most pronounced social revolution which Anglo-Saxon East Anglia experienced was the Danish invasion. That the Danes came in sufficient numbers to make permanent settlements is proved by the place-names of the region. To the Danes also is probably to be attributed the larger free element in the population which in 1086 still persisted here, as elsewhere in the Danelaw. In a well-settled area, such as East Anglia undoubtedly was before the coming of the Danes, the intrusion of a considerable THE EAST ANGLIAN SYSTEM Za number of new settlers, who were also conquerors, must have wrought agrarian changes. Foremost among the problems which would naturally arise was that of providing the new-comers with land. One readily surmises that the humbler among the in- vaders became small freeholders, and that the more powerful came into control of many acres along with the tenants already settled thereupon. From the latter appropriation arose the petty manor. Upon the new lords— Danes, or perhaps at times Anglo- Saxons who had profited by disturbed conditions — fell the task of rating the holdings of their new tenants with an eye to uniformity of size within each manor. To them, in short, was due the creation of East Anglian tenementa and eriungs. One naturally asks why incoming Danes brought into existence in East Anglia a unit different in aspect from the virgate and bovate found elsewhere within the Danelaw. The reply is that the midland system of Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire was much the same system as prevailed in Scandinavian countries.1_ Danes and Anglo-Saxons agreed in their method of tilling township fields. Hence when the Danes settled in northeastern England there was no need of a readjustment, either on the part of freemen or on the part of conquerors who may have developed into manorial lords. No difference, there- fore, would in the future be perceptible between the field system of the northern Danelaw and that of Wessex.. In East Anglia, however, the Danes probably found a field system divergent, then as later, from that of the midlands. To this they adapted themselves, being without doubt the minority of the population. It was, like their own, a system of open fields, and at the time of their arrival had become one of scattered parcels. In tem- perament and customs they were not hostile to the process of subdivision and dispersion, and they may even have contributed to the disintegration which after the re-rating once more set in throughout East Anglia. But how far the responsibility for this later movement rests with them is uncertain and does not parti- cularly affect the hypothesis sketched above. ~ According to that hypothesis, to state it once more in taking leave of the subject, 1 Meitzen, Siedelung und A grarwesen, i. 22. 354 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the East Anglian field system was in origin similar to the Kentish, but was so modified before the Norman Conquest through the settlement of the Danes and the formation of the manorial system that by the thirteenth century it had developed pasturage arrangements and a unit of villein tenure peculiar to itself. CHAPTER IX THe LOWER THAMES BASIN THE four counties which lie between East Anglia, Kent, and the circuit of the midland system, together forming what may be called the basin of the lower Thames east of the Chilterns, are Surrey, Middlesex, Hertfordshire, and Essex. To the north this basin is drained by the small rivers Colne, Lea, Roding, and by the coastal streams of Essex; to the south by the Wey and the Mole. For the most part it is sharply bounded by high hills. The Surrey downs stretch from Croyden southwest to Aldershot, while high-lying heath and the forest of Windsor extend north- ward to the Thames. On the northwest and north the Chiltern hills and foothills continue the boundary to the corner of Essex, whence it is no longer upland but the river Stour flowing down tothe sea. Although the basin of the lower Thames is not strictly conterminous with the four counties mentioned, it is nearly so. The exclusion of a strip of Surrey on the south and of the edge of Hertfordshire on the north is compensated for by the inclusion of southern Buckinghamshire and a patch of Bedfordshire. The region is practically that which must have been occupied by the East Saxons and Middle Saxons in the sixth century. In its field systems this area differed somewhat from the Kent- ish, East Anglian, and midland districts, but borrowed character- istics from each. The unit of villein tenure was in general not the iugum or the tenementum (although there are interesting exceptions), but the virgate. This midland feature, however, was such in name rather than in reality. The virgates here did not consist, as they did in the midlands, of parcels equally distributed between two or three fields; instead their parcels lay irregularly throughout several furlongs, shots, fields, or crofts. In this ir- regularity they approximated to fifteenth-century Kentish hold- ings and East Anglian tenementa. Although the region was more 355 356 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS or less homogeneous in these respects, it will be best to present the evidence county by county and then attempt to make certain generalizations. Surrey ARABLE open field in Surrey persisted until the period of parlia- mentary enclosure, the reporters to the Board of Agriculture in 1794 estimating the total at some 12,000 acres. The largest amount in a single township was the 800 acres at Epsom, while the townships which had more than 350 acres apiece numbered only about a dozen.’ Although the open-field arable thus con- stituted no large fraction of a township, parliamentary awards often refer as well to considerable stretches of waste.2 At Ewell, for instance, Slater, following the act of 1801, reports that 1200 acres were enclosed.* The award and map, enrolled in 1803, show the enclosing of down on the south and of common on the north (Chessington common) amounting to some 350 acres, but the arable allotted was not more than 600 acres.*- The map fails, as enclosure maps so often do, to indicate the old field names or arrangements. Even were these given, we should be disinclined to accept them as representative of an early field system, since the arable constituted so small a fraction of the township’s area. The reporters to the Board make statements which seem to ally Surrey tillage with that of the midlands. In a general way 1 W. James and J. Malcolm, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Surrey (London, 1794), pp. 45-50. The reporters’ list is as follows: from Carshalton to Sutton and Cheam, 3000 acres; Ewell, 600-700; Epsom, 800; Ashted, 700; Fet- cham, 150; Bookham, 450; East and West Clandon, 300; Merve and Horsehil, 510; Egham, 300; Hythefields, 250; Thorp, 350; Mortlake, Putney, Wandsworth, and Battersea, 1340; Runnymead, 160; Yard Mead and Long Mead, 100; Wey- bridge and Walton meadows, 350; Send Common Broad Meadow, 365; Scotches Common Broad Meadow in Send parish, 50; Send Little Mead, 70. 2 The award and map for Croydon are among the few that have been printed: J. C. Anderson, Plan and Award of the Commissioners appointed to Enclose the Commons of Croydon, Croydon, 1889. 3 English Peasantry, p. 301. * The map reveals the northern half of the township entirely enclosed, while its open field lay compactly in the southern half, stretching toward the downs.. Where arable and downs met on the east, another enclosed area of some 200 to. 300 acres was marked off as North Loo Farm. The award is in the Public Record Office. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 357 they remark upon the similarity between the open fields of the county and those of other counties, describe the three-course ro- tation, and even mention the tripartite division.'. The conclu- sion of their account, however, shows that they were not at the moment describing what they saw. Mankind has at length, they say, become ‘‘ more thoughtful and more enlightened,” and has ‘changed somewhat of the mode ”’ of cultivation. The descrip- tion is intended to be historical and general, the reporters assum- ing that the three-field system, which in their day they still saw farther up the Thames, had once prevailed in Surrey. This natural assumption we should likewise make were the earlier evidence in accord with it. Since, however, the testimony of surveys and terriers conflicts with the conjectural but seemingly straightforward account of the reporters, it will have to be given in some detail. Somewhat voluminous is the careful transcription of numerous Surrey terriers drawn up in 1-2 Edward VI and probably re- lating to monastic lands.?, Regarding many townships we learn of little more than the existence of common fields, the specification being that so many acres lay ‘“‘ in communi campo ” or “ in com- munibus campis.”’? In the longer terriers no holding is evenly divided between two or three comprehensive fields, as would surely have happened several times in the description of an equal 1 “ According to the common field husbandry of this county [which is similar to that of other counties] . . . very little or no variation could take place; and therefore wheat, barley, and oats have been the uniform routine, and their chief aim has been to get the wheat crop round, be the ground rich or poor, shallow or deep. The custom of each manor in the arable lands for the most part was to lay them in three common fields; and in so doing they were enabled to pursue a course of wheat, barley or oats, and the third remained in fallow... . But as mankind became more thoughtful and more enlightened, finding the bad effects of this sort of husbandry, and being precluded the advantage of winter crops; seeing also the absurdity of fallowing, they wisely made an agreement among themselves (wherever they could possibly effect it) and changed somewhat of the mode by the introduc- tion of the artificial grasses ” (General View, etc., p. 38). 2 Land Rev., M. B. 190; Treas. of Receipt, M. B. 168, 169, 3 Of this nature are terriers relating to West Cheam, West Molesey, East Mole- sey, Esher, Waddington (in Coulsdon); Malden, Witley, Claygate, Pirbright, Lam- beth, Ashstead, Eashing, Shalford (Land Rev., M. B. 199, ff. 107, 386, 48, 40b and 117, 68b, 170, 1300, 1360, 138, 156, 189, 2250, 226). 358 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS number of midland holdings. Parcels are, to be sure, sometimes located in fields, but this is done in the most incidental manner. Several typical terriers in which “ fields ’’ are distinguished from furlongs make clear this characteristic.! 1 At Kingston a leasehold is described as a toft and three roods, ‘‘ cum vi acris terre arabilis, viz., iii acre iacent in quodam campo vocato le Combefeld in diversis parcellis et i alia acra iacet in quodam campo vocato le litlefeld in brokefurlong et i alia acra iacet in eodem campo apud le Chapelstyle et sexta acra iacet in eodem campo in tribus partibus ” (Land Rev., M. B. 190, f. 163). At Sutton there was a freehold “‘ tenementum cum xiii acris terre arabilis eidem tenemento pertinentibus iacentibus in communi campo in diversis locis, viz., iiii acre insimul iacent subtus le halle et iii acre terre insimul iacent in le Russhemede . . . ; et iii acre [et] dimidia insimul iacent in australi campo de Sutton apud Suttonsplott et ii acre [et] dimidia iacent apud le Fowleslowe ”’ (ibid., f. 625). At Ewell the 6} acres which are appurtenant to a tenement and garden “ iacent in diversis particulis in campo vocato Southefeld, unde due acre iacent ex parte occidentali vie ducentis de Ewell versus Bansted et alia acra iacet ex parte orientali vie ducentis de Ewell versus Reigate iuxta Chillis- busshe alia acra iacet in Estmarkefurlong inter terram ... et terram... alia acra iacet in Southelong inter terram .. . et terram.. . dimidia acra iacet apud Balardespit sexta acra iacet inter viam regiam ducentem de Ewell versus Reygate . . . et aliam viam ducentem_ versus Walton ” (ibid., f. 91). At Walton-upon-Thames a leasehold of 2 Edward VI consisted of 15} acres of pasture and woodland and 34} acres of arable. Two-thirds of the arable lay in closes, but 10} acres were “in diversis parcellis in lakefield.” A freehold in the same township consisted of a tenement at Payneshill, 7 acres in crofts, 5} acres of meadow, and “ in communi campo vocato Lakefeld iiii acre et dimidia apud Hokebusshe i alia acra iuxta le Lake iii acre et dimidia apud Guldford corner . ii alie acre ibidem iii rode abuttantes super Stonyhill ”’ (ibid., f. 735). At Worplesdon a freehold comprised a messuage with 1§ acres adjoining, and “ii acras terre ibidem iacentes in communi campo vocato le Greate Worthe . . . ac dimidiam acram terre in dicto communi campo... ac unam acram et dimidiam in communi campo ibidem vocato le Litleworth ” (ibid., f. 170b). Another freehold in Worplesdon had “ xi acras terre arabilis divisim iacentes in iibX* communibus campis ibidem vocatis le Greateworth et le litleworth.” In the first lay 10} acres in five parcels, in the second one half-acre parcel. At Weybridge three fields recur in two copyholds. In the first we hear of a messuage with 5} “ acras terre arabilis divisim iacentes in communibus campis, unde iiii acre iacent in Wodhawfeld et iacra dimidia iacent in le Townefelde ac etiam iiii acre terre iacent in Pircrofte iiii acre terre et pasture in Townegaston ac ii acre et dimidia prati-” (ibid., f. 32). THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 359 Only from Kingston have we a terrier which gives such a de- scription of acres as would imply a two- or three-field system; and even here nothing but chance and the smallness of the holding are responsible, since other Kingston terriers mention other fields. At Sutton a South field, it appears, figured beside three equally important nondescripts. At Walton all the acres lay in a single field, Lake field, and at Ewell all were similarly in South field. Worplesdon had, besides its Great Worth, where were most of the acres, its ‘‘ Litleworth ’’, contributing to each holding a par- cel or two. Even if, by accepting the doubtful Pyrcroft, we posit three fields in the Weybridge terriers, we find the acres appor- tioned with no symmetry, Townefeld having fewest in one holding and most in the other. At West Clandon, where again there were three fields, East field received 43 acres in contrast with 3 acres assigned to Tonge field, 1? acres to West field, and 13 acres to miscellaneous areas. It may be objected that, since all the holdings just mentioned were leasehold and freehold, or, if copyhold, were not estimated in virgates, irregularity in field arrangements might naturally be expected to appear. The objection would be valid were it pos- sible to discover in Surrey any instances of symmetrical arrange- ment against which, as against a background, the foregoing Here only the first two parcels seem to lie in the common field, but the other copy- hold suggests that Pircroft is to some extent common. Appurtenant toa tenement called Hudnetts one finds a small close and ‘*ii acras terre arabilis iacentes in Wodhawfeld iii acras et dimidiam terre arabilis iacentes in campo vocato Pyrcroft iiii acras terre arabilis divisim iacentes in Townefeld”’ (ibid., f. 355). At West Clandon a freehold tenement has appurtenant three gardens, a croft, and “ xi acre terre arabilis quaarum iii acre iacent in quodam campo vocato Tongefeld dimidia acra in Northehill dimidia acra in Southehill una roda terre in Westfeld una roda in Bassettehawe apud Hordunstile due acre et dimidia in Estfeld super culturam vocatam Northefore dimidia acra in eodem campo vocato Estfeld super culturam vocatam longrowe dimidia acra in eodem campo super culturam vocatam Shuldmere dimidia acra in eodem super culturam vocatam Shelfegate dimidia acra in eodem campo super culturam vocatam Pyrrewe dimidia acra in Westfeld super culturam vocatam Litledean dimidia acra in eodem campo vocato Westfeld super culturam vocatam threyerden dimidia acra in eodem campo super culturam vocatam Westlongland ”’ (ibid., f. 146). 360 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS terriers stand out as exceptions. Not only do such instances fail to occur in this series of surveys, but four detailed descrip- tions of virgates confirm the evidence just given. Dating from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, these de- scriptions are as satisfactory illustrations of the appearance of Surrey holdings as can be desired.!. Each virgate was \appurte- 1 At Epsom the virgate which was held with the tenement called “ Synotes”’ by copy of t Henry VIII comprised, along with two parcels which may have been added: — “i croftam terre vocatam marters et iii acras terre in Chotley unam acram terre apud Whiteweshill ii acras terre apud Wersdeynsknoll et iii acras terre apud Hadbrought et iiii acras terre in communi campo unam acram iacentem apud Churchefurlong et i acram et dimidiam iacentes in Gorybroke et i acram [et] dimidiam iacentes in Middlefurlong et dimidiam acram apud Werisdenknoll nuper Johanis Hellowes et ii acras terre iacentes in Mysden pertinentes ad nuper officium Coquinari ” (Land Rev., M. B. 190, f. 61). At Battersey in 1 Edward VI a tenement had appurtenant “‘ dimidiam virgatam terre et prati, unde una acra terre iacet apud Tyethbournehawe .. . due acre contigue iacent in Longstrete .. . et alia acra terre iacet in Croche .. . una acra iacet in Stonyland .. . dimidia acra terre iacet in le Grotton . . . ii acre terre iacent separatim in medmeney . . . una roda prati iacet in Sladonditch ” (ibid , f. 16). In 31 Henry VI the abbot of Chertsey granted to William Frydey at Chobham “unum mesuagium, unum curtilagium cum dimidia virgata terre vocata Eyrey . . . in villenagio . . . unde due acre terre iacent in campo vocato Burifeld inter terram ... et terram... et due acre iacent in campo vocato Beanionde inter terram .. . et terram.. et iiii acre iacent in campo vocato Gretestene et due acre iacent in campo vocato lytilstene [two acre-parcels] et una pecia terre continens ii acras iacet apud Estonlanende iuxta campum vocatum Gretestene Et unum pratum ... et unum pratum .. . [no areas]” (Exch. K. R., M. B. 25, f. 2646). In 33 Henry VI the abbot of the same monastery conveyed at Chertsey “unum cotagium et unum curtilagium cum dimidia virgata terre cum suis pertinentibus vocata proutfotes . . . unde predictum cotagium cum curtilagio iacet ibidem in vico vocato Eststrete et tres acre pariter iacent in campo vocato Estfelde in cultura vocata Syllyn ... et dimidia acra terre iacet ibidem iuxta Coppedeheg’’. .. et due acre terre pariter iacent in campo vocato Myllershe .. . et una acra iacet in campo vocato yonder Estworthe . . et dimidia acra terre iacet in campo vocato heder Estworthe . et una acra prati iacet in prato vocato Estmede... ~ et una alia acra prati iacet ibidem ” (ibid., f. 2210). THE LOWER THAMES BASIN ‘361 nant to a messuage, and hence maintained a household; two were situated in river townships, two in the center of the county; all were in open field, and in all the parcels were largely arable. Yet in none was there any grouping of the strips by fields. At Ep- som a ‘‘common field’ appears once, but without further speci- fication and on a par with hills and furlongs. At Battersey no fields or even furlongs are mentioned, while the field names are curious. At Chobham we get trace of four “ fields,’ Burifeld, Beanlonde, Gretestene, and Lytilstene; but one of them, Grete- stene, with an adjacent parcel contained half of the holding. At Chertsey the arable was divided among three fields, Estfeld, Myllershe, and Estworth, but in the proportion 33, 2, and 14. No one of the terriers therefore pictures a three-field system. In two grants made by the abbot of Chertsey at East Clandon in 11 Henry IV we are able not only to follow the description of a virgate but to compare with it the account of a fourth-virgate, or ‘“ ferlingata.”! The virgate was large, containing 13} acres 1 Exch. K. R., M. B. 25, f. 284. The respective descriptions are as follows: — “Unum mesuagium et unam virgatam terre vocatam Crouchers continentem Triginta quatuor acras et dimidiam terre que William atte Crouche quondam .. . tenuit in villenagio in Estclendone in diversis locis, unde mesuagium et curtilagium iacent per viam Regiam ducentem usque Shure versus Ripplee una crofta et quatuor acre et dimidia terre vocate Clausland iacent .. . due crofte vocate puricroftes continentes tres acras terre iacent .. . due crofte vocate northecroftes continentes sex acras terre iacent . . . una roda terre vocata Shamelondesbutte iacet iuxta mesuagium predicti tenementi . . . una acra terre iacet in Penstede .. . dimidia acra terre iacet in Penstede predicta . . . una alia dimidia acra terre iacet in eadem Penstede . . . due acre terre vocate Swythecroftes iacent .. . inter . . . halvyncroft... alia dimidia acra terre iacet in le Haluyngcroft predicto . . . tres rode terre iacent in halewyngcroft predicto .. . alia dimidia acra terre iacet in le Overshorebrude . . . una acra terre iacet in le Overshorebrude . . . una dimidia acra terre iacet in le Overshorebrude inter terram communem vocatam le Doune... una alia dimidia acra terre iacet in le Nethereshorebrude . . . alia dimidia acra terre iacet in quodam forlango vocato horeslowe . . . alia dimidia acra terre iacet apud Lytelhegge . . . una acra terre vocata Cowshoteacre iacet .. . tres rode terre iacent apud Longedenesende . . . una acra terre iacet apud Coppedthorn . . . dimidia acra terre iacet sub le Coppedthorn . . . una roda terre vocata le houstedell iacet inter terram vocatam Stonycroft .. . una alia roda terre iacet in Scoldmere . . . una alia roda terre vocata Rokeyerdmele . . . 362 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS in crofts and 21 acres of common land lying in thirty-one parcels. A few of the parcels were in the same field areas — three in Pen- stede, three in Overshorebrude, two in Halvyngcroft — but most were disparate and without inclination to group themselves by fields. The ferling, which was about one-fourth as large as the virgate, appears relatively less enclosed. Noteworthy about its parcels was their location in field divisions that are not once named in the description of the virgate. The symmetry and uniformity which might be expected under three-field arrange- ments were thus entirely wanting. Longest of the Chertsey terriers, four of which have just been quoted, are those relative to Egham, which lies on the Thames just east of Windsor Park. In them two virgates and three half-virgates granted by the abbot in 2 Richard III are described in full! The length and breadth of the strips are often given, e. g., “i pecia terre in Northcrofte . . . longitudine xxvi perti- cas, latitudine in utraque parte iii perticas, continens dimidiam acram, dimidiam rodam, viii perticas.’”’ More comprehensible than a transcript of the holdings is a tabulation showing the parcels arranged by fields and permitting a comparison of the virgates. Each holding includes a messuage, a curtilage, dimidia acra terre iacet apud Thistelford . . . una parva butta terre vocata Pilchebutt’ iacet .. . dimidia acra terre iacet supra Bradvor.. . una acra terre iacet in le Stonycroft . . . dimidia acra terre iacet super bradvor . . . tres rode terre iacent super Wowefor . . . dimidia acra terre iacet super le Westhulne . . . una acra terre iacet super le Westhulne . . . una parva pecia terre continent’ [sic] unam acram et dimidiam vocatam le Sturtes iacet .. . dimidia acra terre iacet super le Northfor . . . tres rode terre iacent apud Godhurne. . . .” “Unum toftum et unam ferlingatam terre... in villenagio . . . continentem septem acras terre et unam rodam unde predictum Toftum continet unam acram dimidiam terre... una alia acra terre iacet in Rogersdene . . . una alia acra terre iacet in le Shorebrude . . . una alia acra terre iacet super le Westeshulne . una alia acra terre iacet apud le Merk . . . una roda terre iacet apud le Merk predictum .. . dimidia acra terre iacet super le Inlond . . . alia dimidia acra terre iacet super le Middelfor . . . una alia acra terre iacet super longworthe.” 1-Exch. K. R., M. B. 25, f. 2380. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 363 and a group of strips the areas of which in acres are as fol- lows: — Dimidia Dimidia Virgata Gilberti Virgata Dimidia Virgata Virgata Virgata Field et Johanis Matildis Williemi at Well Agnetis Johannis Divisions Morcok de Bakeham de Inglefeld at Well at Well (pane bes | cu sk plia 892) 29 4 Ermersh ....4 1 pecia prati TPET 3,2 34 3,3 2 pecia terre arabilis Ie , 22 Ce) closed Southcroft ..44 1 ) ; 13 1} 2)4),1,1,1pe- | l cia J Li Northcroft .. 3,3 hirer 1 ? 2 2 rave ? Burgcroft ... AL ama Lee 14 ee I> Hillarshe .... I pecia ayaa 42 43 43 (4apud Sidene-) hill 134 apud le : *s es ell 3 Medilgrove ] Miscellaneous< ae e j ¢ Langfur aoe ee 2) pre= I pecia 1uxta Fi ” : 2 aes (2 Shortfer presture IZ, x unspeci- lL fied J (zt, 2 (terra et | bruerium) (antec (God: eet 2, 1, Og, Crofta inclusa} Site eet oe \ 43, 32 45 ( ' 13,1 J § (pas- 3 gravetta J bruerium) [ ; tura) 12 (terra et bruerium) j Pratum and I pratum, 5 tu “ ” 8 core 14,8 more 3 more Every holding, it thus appears, comprised several enclosures, but the largest part of each still consisted of parcels intermixed with those of other men. Although the township lies near the Thames and the name Ermersh may suggest marsh land, most of the unenclosed parcels seem to have been arable. Those of the several holdings were very unevenly distributed among the field divisions. The half-virgates had large parcels in Hillarshe, but not.so the virgates; one holding had eight parcels in Southcroft, another had five in Northcroft, the others not more than a parcel 364 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS or two apiece in these areas; Burgcroft appears but twice; the first holding had ten parcels in Ermersh, the others only two each. The location of many parcels in “ crofts ’ suggests a subdivision of old enclosures rather than normal open field. Considered together, therefore, the Egham terriers not only fail to evince any trace of a three-field system, but even seem to be prohibitive of such an arrangement. Since complete surveys are always more convincing than ter- riers, any comprehensive evidence of this sort available from Surrey is important. Somewhat late, to be sure, is the descrip- tion of Banstead, which in 1680 pictures little of the township un- enclosed.!_ Five of the tenants were then possessed of a few acres vaguely assigned to “‘ the common field,” the area of which proves to have been only about 24 acres. The fields may to some ex- tent have_been reduced in size, since we find mention of “‘ Upper, Middle, and Lower Common field Closes’’; but it is not clear that they had ever been large. Another survey, earlier by three-quarters of a century, re- cords all the holdings at Byfleet and Bisley.2, Byfleet, a town- ship adjacent to the river Wey, was then entirely enclosed. At Bisley there is note of a few small common fields, the combined area of which was about roo acres and nearly all of which fell within a dozen copyholds.* Most acres were in Neltrow and Widcroft, a few being in Burcroft. Since in nearly all of the copyholds the enclosed area exceeded in amount that which was open, from an agricultural point of view it mattered little that 1 H. C. M. Lambert, History of Banstead in Surrey (Oxford, 1912), pp. 194-216. 2 Land Rev., M. B. 203, ff. 80-133. 5 Their areas in acres may be tabulated as follows: — Customary Unspeci- Common Tenants Enclosed Neltrow Northill Widcroft Southash Burcroft fied Meadow Robt Cobbett, m.. 1 7 zi I A 34 re 24 Edm. Bonsey .... F : te : 9 Martha Lusher,2m. 113? 3 24 24 2 I ea 25 Jo. Symons, m.... 21} 2 Sg 2 ye I Robt. Cobbett ... 74 Br 3 2} an I Be I Wm.Farnham,m.. 10} 9 acres in these three Jo. Hone, m. ..... 11} 2 < 2 Ae 2 2 Henry Lee, m. ... 163 2 i 5 2 2 I Henry Lee, m. ... Rk 2 Ey 5 I 2 1} Joseph Hone, m. .. 8 4 2 3 I I I Henry Rutter,m..- 14} _ be ie A os 10 3 THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 365 there was no symmetrical distribution of acres among the field divisions. The common fields of Bisley were at this time prob- ably similar to those of many Surrey townships when the formal enclosure of these took place in the eighteenth or nineteenth century. Nor had the Bisley fields changed much during the two centuries preceding the survey, if we may judge from the mention of three of them in an indenture of 6 Henry IV.!. At Bisley, as at Egham and East Clandon, irregular field arrange- ments thus antedated the sixteenth century. Not all sixteenth-century common fields in Surrey were so meagre as those of Banstead or Bisley. A field-book written in a hand of about 1600 describes furlong by furlong all the parcels of open field in “Keyo and West Sheen alias Richmond,” the total being some 650 acres. By tabulating and summarizing the information there given, we get what is perhaps our best view of relatively extensive open fields in the county at the period in question. All holdings larger than five acres are noted in a schedule in Appendix VI. The smaller holdings, which averaged about 13 acres and con- sisted of from one to three parcels, numbered nearly thirty. Each of them lay in one division of the township’s arable, a characteris- tic not indicative of a midland field system. Nor for the larger holdings was there a general arrangement by fields, the furlongs instead having a substantial importance. After being told about Kew field and Kew heath, we come upon the “ lower field,” in which there were at least two shots, and possibly more. There- after we are guided upward and southward only by furlongs, since “ East field’ was no more than a shot. To discover any simple field system governing the distribution of acres is difficult. Kew field was of interest to only three tenants, one of whom had nothing in the Richmond furlongs, and a second but little. If we disregard Kew field and try to arrange the remaining furlongs in 1 Exch. K. R., M. B. 25, f. 264. Of the five acres of arable from which tithes were owed by a certain John Willere, “una acra iacet -in Campo vocato Northull et una acra et dimidia pariter iacent in Campo vocato Wydecroft et una acra iacet in Campo vocato Eltrowe ; et una acra et dimidia pariter iacent in Campo vocato Westeworth.” 366 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS three groups, the following combination is probably the most feasible: — “ The shott butting The Lower- upon the park Upper Dunstable field furlongs west’’ and Church to Maybush shot (three) furlong inclusive Du cenry Foreman. ss: tees te os ° 3h 8} Wall. Portman: sq. ew us oss [164] 24 28} John Burd, iure uxoris .......... [74] 2 2 Stephen Pierce, Gent. .......... 9} 19} 41} Vincan Jones, Gent. ............ 28 303 243 — Payne, Gent, iure uxoris ..... 24 293 334 Robt. Glarke, Esq its.reh i cfsfag es 14} 10 133 Geo Charley Gent. (c4;.ee. >; 5 3 10 Mary, Crome, VidUa sic. cece ile 6 12}, II Lady Wiehe 26 Soe ye 2a 5 3h 63 Barth. Smith, iure uxoris ....... 2 34 63 Oke PERT Ce ie a che ee age 5 I 2 Mine GHUrch lands che eet ere [2] 2 23 MNOS. OWN Cre he ee ee fo) 4% 52 In the case of three tenants, Jones, Payne, and Clarke, this group- ing would make a three-field system not altogether impossible, but elsewhere the misfit is complete. Any other arrangement of furlongs, whether by three or four fields, is equally futile. The irregularity of the Richmond field system at the end of the six- teenth century seems pretty clearly demonstrated. From a survey of 1522, earlier by three-quarters of a century than that of Bisley or than the Richmond field-book, we have the items which relate to the manor of Merstham.! Although the hold- ings here were tending to accumulate in the hands of a few men, they are still differentiated in the survey. Usually at least half of each lay in open field. When, however, we begin to examine the location of the constituent acres we at once encounter difficulties. For there were no comprehensive fields. The parcels of the larger holdings lay in as many as twenty field areas, often called furlongs, the amounts assigned to each being usually from one-half acre to three acres;* and no grouping of these furlongs to form any kind 1 The extracts were copied in 1710 from a “ Rentall of the Lordshipps of Mers- tham and Charlewood,” and have been printed in Surrey Archaeological Collections, 1907, XX. 94-114. * The following holding, though not of the longest, is typical: — THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 367 of system can be other than highly conjectural and inconclusive. It is evident that at Merstham no emphasis was put upon the midland combination of furlongs into three large fields; the fur- longs possessed rather an independence and flexibility which admitted of any arrangement desired. If we turn now to our earliest sources of information regarding Surrey fields, the fines and charters of the thirteenth century, we shall get plenty of evidence that open fields were usual, but none pointing to the existence of a regular field system. Various fines dating from 10 Richard I to 19 Henry III locate the small parcels of the transferred lands in such way as to leave no doubt that open-field strips were in question.! In some terriers, furthermore, the location of strips is instruc- tive. At Walworth a lease of 17 Edward II enumerates twenty parcels containing 203 acres of arable which lay in Ellenebussh, Lolipette, Longewygheth, Fowes, and Southcroft.2. In four in- stances, indeed, it is possible to discover in a measure how the par- cels which constituted a virgate were disposed. At Mitcham a half virgate and six acres are defined as “‘ illam medietatem que ubique iacet in campis de Inlond, Bery, Battesworth, Burforlang, Spirihey, Westbroc, versus umbram .. .”’? At Carshalton ten acres taken from a virgate comprised two acres in Hodicumbe and “William Holman for a tenement, garden, and croft on the backside called Barkleyes containing by estimation 2 acres anda halfe .. . for half an acre in North Deane in the common Feild . . . And for one yard in Swynk Furlong... . And halfe an acre in North Worth .. . And for one yard in Towneman Meade .. . And 3 yards in Tottbury Bush shott . . . And for 2 acres in a peece in Crooked Land... And for one acre in Heyforlong . . . And halfe an acre there .. . And for halfe an acre there in Ashtedd . . . And for another halfe acre there . . . And halfe an acre in Tottbury Hill Furlong .. . And for balfe an acre in Tottbury Bush Shott .. . and for halfe an acre in Little Bosefeild Shott . . . and for one acre in the upper shott in Quarrepittden . . . And for one acre in Great Oate Croft . . .” (ibid., 106). 1 Such open-field strips are attributable to Camberwell, “‘ Bechom,”’ ‘‘ Maudon,”’ Kingston, and Thorp: Ped. Fin., 225-1-44 (10 Rich. I); 225-2-2 (1 John); 225- 3-44 (14 John); 225-4-13 (3 Hen. III); 225-4-21 (3 Hen. III). 2 MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, Lib. B, f. 350. 3 Ped. Fin., 225-9-30, 19 Henry III. 368 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS three in Hegecroft, while the others were situated at Stikelehelde, Twiseledeweie, Westhehe, Cwernherst, and Netherathe.. At Polestede, in a transfer of two virgates, one was described as ‘“aliam virgatam . . . eiusdem Phillippi, scilicet, duas acras terre et dimidiam que iacent versus austrum sub- tus viam que est inter Polestede et losne et duas acras in Westden et in Coster...una v acras dimidiam in bromhell versus boreal’ unam acram et ili acras in Estden et in Melherse tertiam partem unius acre et i acram prati et tertiam partem prati subtus polested et capitale mesuagium . . .” ? Such curious and varied descriptions of the parcels of a virgate indicate that in the thirteenth as well as in the seventeenth cen- tury the open fields of Surrey between the downs and the Thames were not divided into two or three or four large fields among which the acres of a holding were equally distributed. The mid- land system was not in vogue, and the reminiscent history of the reporters to the Board of Agriculture is not sustained by contemporary evidence. The fields were numerous, were curi- ously named, sometimes being called furlongs, and the distri- bution of the acres of a holding among them was irregular. What the affiliations of this unsymmetrical system were can best be discussed after a study of neighboring counties has been made. Before we leave Surrey it should be noted that on the Kentish border a virgate in the early documents does not resemble one which lay in the plain to the north and west of the downs. In the high rolling country between Croydon and Reigate a virgate often seems to have been a more or less compact parcel of land, with no scattering of the acres. At Banstead the 24 acres which were granted from a virgate lay “‘ in Snithescroft.””* At Sander- stead the fourth part of a virgate was ‘“‘ unum campum terre... . et quinque acre in hadfeld quas Ricardus filius Swein essarta- vit.’ 4 At Gatton the half of two virgates may perhaps have been slightly more disparate, comprising as it did 1 Ped. Fin., 225-3-4, 5 John. 2 Tbid., 225—1-41, 10 Rich. E. ) 3 Ibid., 225-2-8, 1 John. 4 Ibid., 225-2-15, 1 John. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 369 ‘‘ septem acras terre in Neweland et duas acras terre et dimidiam ad Horscroft et duas acras terre et dimidiam ad Kinerod et dimidiam acram ad Wudappeltre et medietatem curtilagii . . . in eadem villa quod vocatur Chapmanhag.”’ ! The existence of compact virgates in this region need not im- ply that there were no common fields. A Coulsdon rental of 11 Henry VII specifies several crofts, ‘‘ cum aliis terris in com- munibus campis de Wentworth, Churchden, prestyslond.” ? Other documents furnish a clue to the nature of these fields, and any one who has seen the bald chalk downs of the neighborhood can surmise what was their character. In a lease of 9g Henry VI there is mention of ‘‘ viginti acre terre pariter iacentes in campo vocato Wenteworthe ”’;* and in a Coulsdon charter of 18 Ed- ward II 484 acres of arable are described as lying “ in communi campo in loco qui vocatur Toldene iuxta ferthyngdoune.”’ 4 The common fields were, it seems, nothing less than the slopes of the downs, in which parcels were likely to be large; and the very fre- quency with which the fields were named “ dene” points to the same conclusion. Fields of such a character in eastern Surrey help to explain the tendency of virgates in that region to lie in a few parcels, or even in a single parcel. The virgates did, indeed, begin to take on somewhat the aspect of Kentish iuga, with which, as we shall see, they were probably allied. Hertfordshire Wuat has to the modern student become the typical three-field township of England, is, with no inconsiderable irony, located in a county not characterized by the three-field system. Had See- bohm gone ten miles to the south or to the east he would have found no field arrangements like those of Hitchin. For it hap- pens that the long northwestern boundary of the county falls within the midland area and just beyond the hills that bound 1 Ped. Fin., 225-5—25, 8 John. 2UH XC he Res Mera 255 1.330: * Ibid; f. 347. 4 Thid., f. 336. 370 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS the valley of the lower Thames. In consequence there was in Hertfordshire a fringe of townships, of which Hitchin was one, as typically three-field or six-field as anything to the north. In this region it was that the reporter to the Board of Agricul- ture in 1794 noted the persistence of open fields. ‘“‘ The land [of the county]” he says, “is generally inclosed, though there are many small common fields . . . which are cultivated nearly in the same way as inclosed lands; the larger common fields lie toward Cambridgeshire.” Almost all of Ashwell he found un- enclosed.!. This township, along with Hinxworth and one or two other places, is a projection of Hertfordshire between Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire, belonging topographically with the latter counties and like Hitchin falling within the midland area? Adja- cent to Ashwell is Kelshall, a plan of which, made at the end of the eighteenth century, apparently for purposes of enclosure, shows six large open fields stretching northward from the village to the heath, which lay on the Cambridgeshire border.’ Not far away, on the northern slope of the hills, lay the manor of Lan- nock in the parish of Weston. Here, too, an early seventeenth- century description of the demesne divides it among three fields in the midland manner.* 1D. Walker, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Hertfordshire (London, 1794), pp. 48, 52. 2 A Hinxworth terrier in an early seventeenth-century hand, describing the lands “‘ which Bray holds to Calldecott farme,’’ enumerates them as follows (Add. MS. 33575, ff. 46-48): — In the Windmill Field or Clay field................... 32 acres in 6 parcels In Waller field 7250545 «3. ERS BS ee: 155 4a Soo2 tee in Bennill fieldss.2'.cee and acticin Peer I a: cae in’ Saltmiore held #13... Steer ec ce ae ee eee 2b 4 eS to see & En Blackland tele occ scion acerksem ree ee ee 263 iS sae Im This enumeration does not indicate clearly the character of the field system. The township may originally have had two fields, one of which is here represented by Blackland field; or the terrier may be incomplete, since it begins very abruptly; or, once more, the farm which Bray held may have had enclosed lands which per- mitted the irregular distribution of parcels throughout the fields. 3 Add. MS. 37055. The fields were Baldock Way, Crouch Hill, Stump Cross, Sibbern Hill, East Little, and Beacon. 4 After specifying the scitus manerii of 17 acres and a woodland of 35 acres, the account continues relative to the arable: ‘“‘ Que quidem terra arabilis dividitur in tribus Seysonibus [the culture being designated]. . . . In illo campo quod iacet iuxta THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 371 Another projection of Hertfordshire, comprising the townships of Long Marston, Puttenham, Wilston, and Tring, runs into the midland area between Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire. The open fields of all these townships except Puttenham were en- closed by an award of 1799.1. According to the enclosure map, Long Marston had three fields (Langdale, Mill, and Lolymead); Wilston had three, somewhat subdivided, to be sure, but still clearly discernible (Near East and Far East, Bennell, Lince Hill with Blackmoor and Moor Hill); and Tring had seven, appar- ently grouped as Dunsley and Parkhill, Hazely and Gamnill, Hawkwell and Hitchin and Gold. Turning now from the three-field edge of Hertfordshire to the body of the county, what field system do we find? Evidently one which is irregular in much the same way as that of Surrey. In so far as the holdings of a township lay in open field, the fields were many and there was no symmetry in the distribution of parcels among them. Indeed, at a fairly early date certain townships contained no open field whatever. In 28 Charles II a survey was made of the manor of Hemel Hempstead with its members, Flanden, Eastbrook, Boxhamstead and Bovingdon, a large area in the Chiltern region of the west.? All the parcels are expressly stated to have been closes, and there is no trace of open field. In an earlier survey of 1607 relating to Berkhamstead and its neighbor Northchurch most of the parcels appear as closes, though a half-dozen common fields are mentioned. Of these the two most often named probably lay in Northchurch, an indication that even at this early date Berkhamstead was al- most, if not quite, enclosed.* If we pass northeastward along the southern slope of the Hert- fordshire hills, we come successively to Little Ayott, Kings Walden, Weston, Clothall, and Ardeley. The appearance of viam que ducit de Sheneffeld versus Wylie et abuttat super boscum de Langenoke . . . [are] ccxxi acre iii Rode et vi acre de novo adquisite. In Seysona de Gravele- feld . . . ciiii** et v acre et Roda et x perticatas. In Seysona de Duxwellefeld . . . cclx acre preter iii perticatas ’’ (Add. MS. 33575, ff. 57-58). 1 K. B. Plea Ro., 45 Geo. III, Mich. 2 Land Rev., M. B. 216, ff. 39-70. 3 Tbid., M. B. 365, ff. 1-25. 372 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS each of these townships is described in sixteenth- or early seven- teenth-century documents, all of them implying the existence of open fields but never the existence of a two- or three-field sys- tem. At times the amount of open field was very slight. In 1636 “a coppie of the Survey of Little Ayott ” (probably relat- ing to demesne) took account of 83 acres of woodland, 64 acres of park land, and twenty-three closes containing together 329 acres, while in Church field there were but 19 acres in twelve parcels and in Nellwyn field but 24 acres in nineteen parcels. Only one- ninth of the tillable lands here still lay open.! From Kings Walden the field detail contained in three ter- riers is far more explicit. The latest, dated 1654, rehearses the “‘particulers of the landes liing in the Common Feildes belonging to the Berry and Parsonage Farme taken out of former notes with some additions’’;* another of 1568 relates to all the “copyehold londes of John Camfyld holden of the manor of Kings Waldon ”’;* the third is a valuation, in an Elizabethan hand, of the possessions of Sir William Burgh, knight. The Burgh estate comprised a manor house, 266 acres of enclosed land, 80 acres of woodland, and “ clxx Acres of Arable lande lieing in sondrie peeces in divers fieldes of Kinges Walden, Powles Walden, and Polletts.”. These open-field acres (except the ten in Powles Walden and Polletts), together with the parcels of the two other terriers, are shown in the table on the next page. No uniformity is perceptible in these terriers, except in the two larger holdings, which show a preponderance of acres in Mill field. Since in both holdings the acres in question comprised more than one-third of the total but less than one-half, Mill field can hardly have been one of three fields. Especially would its slight representation in Camfyld’s holding tell against such an hypothesis, while the location of one-third of this copyhold in’ Howcroft once more precludes any simple three-field arrange- ment. On the top of the Hertfordshire hills is situated the parish of Weston, the northern slope of which, constituting Lannock 1 Add. MS. 33575, f. 23. 2 Ibid., f..242. 3 Ibid., f. 141. a Thid> £24: THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 373 : Acres of Sir William Location of Common-field Berry and Parsonage John Camfyld’s Burgh’s Estate, Parcels Farm Copyhold 170 Acres In-Hadden field 2s... -.. - - 21 acresin 2parcels +4, 4,4,4 20% acres “ Hadden dell shott ..... nei 3, 3,4 teMiyllephield. 7348.3. a2: 66 acresin 17 parcels 4 e vA p 73 me oyGdentiiel dian. ser 3 Obes eestor mele g Tere eee: 301," “ Legates field .......... Oar ee LO Mee ss st AD = Gtlangerficlds 222) 2) 3% Day ALY 3c hac e rrasiers so Hopman teldies.)..e 5 oe eas Arik Bivens “Fogman downe ....... TT gah eS cue 63 “ Floxmoore field. ....... I acre “ Wind mill field........ TOs pS aap 4 « WWioodeniay 22. xs. 2%: Ae etek Soa ne eb read Cronte ee seid. ic Cat A rie See | eas 4 “ Landmead downe ..... Gry Se rat : Sleah.2es RELOWECEOLEE Ree CE Loe: 5 ip Ont PRASEV DEL itary aes ene 4%» Tear “Woodden valye ....... 2 “ Woodden hyll......... 4 = SanlGy, SHOLE? sf.i< i 3 «2 ey Spe Two crofts of 3 and 2 acres manor, we have seen disposed in three fields. Weston itself, however, appears to have departed from this arrangement. A mid-seventeenth-century terrier of two tenements of ‘‘ Mr. Faire- clough his land in Weston” names eleven closes of 74 acres at the beginning of the list, seven more of 140 acres at the end, with the following items between: — Frontley Feild: Acres Roods_ Perches AmhedsesR@were te eee ae ° 2 ° imbtheruppershoOthteas sere eee I fo) fo) a peice next weevers mead ......... 13 I 17 peace treespigitellgees ae eee 2 33 a al another close more there :.-..22.-:: 3 3 36 Woodgate!shotts\ 220 Soak ens 23 3 I We corner [5 parcels |iseto- asta eo «so 13-2-34 Lince Feild: Most part of whitehill furlong ...... 13 ° I imi thelsecond furlongese en). ee oe oe 3 ° 14 A DCS MOTE UNIS Socoasctoosuceoc 5 2 Of 73-O-I5 another great peice more there...... 44 ° ° [yacther pieces]s Fs. Seen eed: 5 2 ° Fitks grove shott, the upper shott, neitherdown shott .. ee 1 and walkerne shott [= 102} acres] with 4 other pieces } pa si8? IVAdd= MS: 335755 tgn7- 374 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Despite the bracketing, this arrangement scarcely bespeaks three fields. Even if “‘ ye corner” be added to Frontley Feild, the sum of the acres is not half so great as the area of the last group. Two other items from Weston seem decisive. In a rental of 11 Charles II there is mention inter alia of ‘“Dimidium unius virgate terre vocate Bondsland in a feild called Lince Feild [and] Unum aliud dimidium virgate knowne by the name of Da- viesland iacentis in severall parcells liing in Lince Feilde aforesaid.” } Since half-virgates in three-field townships do not usually lie entirely in one field, we must conclude that the township of Weston marks the transition from the midland area, as repre- sented by Lannock manor, to the region of irregular fields. Adjacent to Weston are Clothall and Ardeley, the latter lying farther down on the southern slope. A terrier of the manors of Kingswodebury and Mundens, situated in these two parishes, is dated 5 Edward VI. The demesne, which lay very largely in Clothall, consisted of 452 acres of “ londs, medowez, Fedyngs, wods, and pasture,” together with ““ erable londes in Sheldon felde in the parishé of Clothall..2 2.5). etixe. = 28 acresin 8 parcels erable acres of lond in the Westfield at-Clothallvi.. comings ya Sheets 383 acres in 13 parcels. The manors comprised also “ londs in the occupation of Thomas hawez,” which with the exception of some 20 acres lay in the par- ish of Ardeley. The Ardeley acres were located indifferently in fields or furlongs, the terms being apparently interchangeable.’ At Clothall and Ardeley, as in the other townships along the south- 1 Add, MS. 33575, f. 315. 2 Add. MS. 33582, ff. 4-09. 3 Netherwykdane furlong, 3, 3, 3, 3, ~ acres; Snaylesdel, 3; Lodley felde, 3, 3, 3, I, I, 33, 3, one pightell; Brokefeld (or furlong), 3, 2, one little pightell; Docke- lond, ¢, 3; Scalfurlong, ?, 3; Depewellshott, ?, 3,4; Holmshot furlong, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4; Newellfeld, 2; Hoggyswelfurlong, 4, 3, 4; Asthill (furlong or field), 1, 4, 4, 4, 4 (meadow); Banbery feld, 13, 3, 13; Kybwellfeld, 1, 2,1; Rybrade, 1 (a headland); Scotesden furlong, 1; Colecrofte, [?]. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 375 ern slope of the Hertfordshire hills, there is thus in the terriers no trace of a three-field grouping. Leaving the hilly townships of the north and passing to the more level region of the southeast, we come upon the large manor of Ware, about which much information is given in a sixteenth- century book of manorial jottings. If from this collection of court rolls, rentals, and incomplete surveys we select three terriers of typical copyholds,! we shall find that the three had a common interest in Wykfeld only. The first had two acres there, the last four; but the other parcels of their open field lay disparate. Most suggestive of the terriers is the second, in which all the acres except two were in Breckelfeld, a proximity reminiscent of the East Anglian system. 1 “ Robertus Forde . . . tenet sibi et heredibus suis . . . per copiam datam . . . Anno regni Regis Henrici VIII’: xxxvi'e unum croftum terre vocatum Gallocroft continens . . . quinque acras unam acram terre iacentem in Warefeld inter le borne et salmonscroft et duas acras terre in Abelyingstok et duas acras terre iacentes in Wykfeld subtus wolkechen hedge et unam acram terre iacentem apud waringehowgate , et unam acram terre inclusam apud le gravel pytts.” “ Christoferus wright tenet per copiam curie datam xiiiti° die Junii anno secundo Regis Edwardi viti unum tenementum vocatum Hills iacens et existens in Baldockstrete . unam acram terre in Brekelfeld iuxta le Claypitt unam aliam acram terre in eodem campo iuxta Dunsell crosse duas acras terre in eodem campo nuper Thome Peerse . . . tres acras terre in eodem campo abuttantes super le Peertre et duas acras terre in campo sive clausura iuxta wyken lane.” The third terrier details the surrender, in 20 Henry VIII, into the hands of the lady of the manor, of ‘unum tenementum cum gardino adiacenti apud werengo hill, decem et octo acras terre arabilis particulariter in diversis locis iacentes, unde quinque Acre iacent in duobus peciis in West feild et quatuor acre terre in wykfeld subtus parcum domine et duo crofta insimul iacent et inclusa tenemento predicto Annexata continentia novem acras terre insimul cum tribus acris prati in parco de ware predicto ac tres acras terre in pippeswell field inter terram .. . et terram , et unam acram prati in parke meade quondam Johanis Ostwyke . . . unum pratum continens tres acras terre vocatum Sondlese. . . . Ac unam peciam terre continentem quinque acras . . . iacentem apud Goodyerefeld inter Ripariam . . . et terram domine.. . et quinque acras terre vocatas Lokeholme . . . iacentes inter Ripariam et Riponam... Necnon decem acras terre subtus parcum domine in Dymershott ac etiam tres acras terre iacentes in wykfeild vocatas Ladymere ”’ (Add. MS. 27976, fi. 67, 89b, 47). 376 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Still farther in the direction of London is Cheshunt, a parish of the Lea valley adjacent to Waltham abbey. Relative to two manors lying mainly in this parish but extending beyond it up and down the river, we have surveys of 19 James I... In the manor of Periers and Beaumond, reaching into Wormley and Tunford on the north, the larger holdings were leaseholds, and for the most part consisted of parcels of pasture and meadow with a few acres in the common meadows. In the other manors of Theobalds, Crosbrook, and Collins, lying towards Waltham, there was still much open field. Here, too, the larger holdings were held by lease, the copyholders having only messuages with at best bits of land attached. The most important leaseholds are summarized in Appendix VI in a schedule which accounts for all the Cheshunt open field. No fewer than 250 arable acres of the manor were common and unenclosed, while the irregularity of field arrangements is perceptible at a glance. As at Edmonton, which was just down the valley of the Lea in Middlesex, a tenant usually had parcels in two or three fields;* but the two or three were seldom the same. No one of them had the prominence which “le Hyde” had at Edmonton, though Holbrooke was favored. Such surveys well illustrate the field situation which was likely to be found just to the north of London at the end of the sixteenth century. If we turn from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century evidence to that of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, we shall find the same line of demarcation in the county. One of the town- ships north of the hills in the Bedfordshire plain is Hexton, where an early charter of Walter de la Ponde bestowed 23 acres of land upon St. Albans abbey. After describing eight parcels which contained 12 acres, the charter gathers under the rubric “Et in alio campo ”’ the remaining twelve or thirteen parcels.’ At the time, therefore, Hexton was in two fields, as were several townships in this part of Bedfordshire. Another Hertfordshire 1 Land Rev., M. B. 216, ff. 16-38. 2 Cf. below, p. 381, and Appendix VI. 3 Cott. MS., Otho D III, f. r52b. At the end of the charter the manuscript is injured. 4 Cf. below, Appendix IT. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 377 village situated in the midland plain appears to have had three fields. In 1297 the demesne lands at Norton were so grouped for a three-course husbandry that the totals by “ seasons ”’ amounted to 64, 68, and 66 acres;! and the assignment of this demesne to such areas as Westfeld, Neitherwestfeld, and Stoke- feld renders it likely that open field is referred to. At Kensworth, however, which lies on the crest of the hills, the existence of a similar situation at an early time is less credible. A lease from there, dated 1152, provides, to be sure, that on its expiration the lessee ‘‘ reddit eis [canonicis Sancti Pauli] totum bladum Ixx acrarum de hiemali blado seminatorum et similiter totum bladum lxx acrarum de vernali blado seminatorum et quatuor xx acras warectetas.”’? There is, however, nothing to show that these acres, which were probably demesne,’ lay in three common fields. Indeed, certain later evidence tells against the existence of such fields at Kensworth; for terriers of several freeholds and copyholds of the time of Henry VII, one of which describes a half-virgate, show no three-field grouping of parcels.* 1 “ Ad seysinam unam pertinent in campo qui vocatur Neitherwestfeld xxiv acre terre arabilis et in bokefeld continentur xl acre ad secundam seysinam pertinent in stokefeld xxxvii acre, in Cellenelond xv acre, in Sondishot xiv acre, in Lepescroft ii acre ad tertiam seysinam pertinent in Westfeld xxiii acre, xxxiv acre, i acra, et viii acre ”’ (MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul’s, Lib. I, f. 150). 2: Ibid:; Lib: LL, We D. 4; £235: 3 At so early a date only demesne acres would be leased. 4 Of the six larger copyholds three are summarized in the following table (from MSS. of St. Paul’s, Press A, Box 62). The fourth description shows that the freeholds were not dissimilar to the copyholds: — “Thomas Albright senior tenet unum mesuagium et xii acras unam rodam terre ac libertatem bosci pertinentem ad dimidiam virgatam terre, iii acras, scilicet, iacentes eidem mesuagio iuxta Basse Croft iii acras abuttantes in dictum Wodgrove iii acras iacentes super Stokkyng hille i acram iacentem apud longemere iii rodas iacentes super le lynches super Stokynghill i acram extendentem ad Croucheway dimidiam acram in eadem cultura abuttantem super eandem viam. “John Ellam tenet unum toftum et xxiii acras terre arabilis, [scilicet], x acre iacentes inter terram Thomam Albright et terram . . . vii acras super Blakehill . . . vi acras iuxta le Kensworth down. 378 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Of three Hertfordshire townships to the north of the summit of the hills, one thus lay in two fields in the thirteenth century, another probably in three, while the Kensworth evidence stops short with showing us a three-course rotation upon demesne lands. South of the crest of the hills the early evidence changes, two fractional virgates being so described as to imply that parcelling out of virgates among fields was not there usual. A fine of 9 John relative to Wheathamstead transfers “ illam quartam par- tem unius virgate terre cum pertinentibus que iacet versus aus- trum et occidentem a via que tendit de molendino de B[atford] usque ad mesuagium ipsius Rogeri.”’! If it be urged that this quarter-virgate may have been demesne, the same objection will not apply to the description of a half-virgate at Tewin. The account is contained in a charter, copied into an early fifteenth- century cartulary of St. Albans, by which ‘‘ Adam filius Walteri, parsone de Aete, [conveys to] Sanson de tebreg pro homagio et servicio suo dimidiam virgatam terre in thebreg, illam, videlicet, dimidiam virgatam terre que iacet inter terram predicti San- sonis et terram Roberti de thebreg’ sub parco de Aiete versus le su... Reddendo inde annuatim . . . duos solidos.”? Hom- age, service, and rent imply customary land, and the whole de- scription, like the one preceding, suggests that the plots of land in question were undivided. It should by no means be assumed that all Hertfordshire vir- gates or fractions thereof were at an early time compact areas. “Thomas Affrith tenet x acras ‘terre arabilis divisim iacentes in campis de Kenesworth, [scilicet], iv acras apud le Greneway ducens a Kenesworth versus le Down iacram ... apud Gatepath iacram et dimidiam . . . super Stokynghill . . . super terras Willielmi Flyndey i acram super easdem terras dimidiam acram iacentem iuxta terram domini la Zouche liacras . . . iuxta terram Johannis Movell dimidiam acram in Crouchedene et est forera et extendit super Croucheway. “ George Ingleton tenet [libere] xi et dimidiam acras terre divisim iacentes, unde v acre similiter iacent iuxta le Spitleway iv acre iacent super Aldreht ii acre similiter iacent ibidem dimidia acra iacet in le Galowfurlong.” 1 Ped. Fin., 84-7-18. 2 Cott. MS., Jul. D III, f. 64. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 379 On the contrary, one may see how exceptional were the two just described by referring to several early terriers from the Essex border, all of which testify to the existence of intermixed parcels in open field. One of these, from Alswick, describing a half- virgate given in the thirteenth century to the priory of Dunmow, enumerates the acres as follows: — “iv acras iacentes in scalchedelle et dimidiam acram et dimidiam Rodam que iacent [iuxta] terram Stephani decani in alio campo adversus gravam decani et duas acras et dimidiam Rodam que iacent in eodem campo in duas partes et acram et dimidiam et unam Rodam per se usque ad viam et ii acras dimidiam rodam minus |sic] inter Alwardeshei et Siwinesho iii rodas sub domo yvonis clerici iuxta terram sparche et unam acram in puse crofth et ii acras quae iacent in campo adversus pucheleshei inter terras brici et sparche et 111 Rodas que appellantur Hevodacher et il acras terre quae iacent circa dellam.”’ ! Unmistakable characteristics of open fields are here visible: 173 acres were divided into ten parts, many of them small; two par- cels were in the same field, another lay per se, and another formed a head acre. The parcels of this terrier had, however, been subjected to no two- or three-field arrangement. Although evidence of such a plan might escape us in a single charter, it would scarcely fail to appear in the numerous terriers that are available. Such records the feet of fines, the cartulary of Waltham abbey, and that of St. John Baptist at Colchester supply in no grudging measure. 1 Harl. MS. 662, f. 670. 2 Typical illustrations from each of these sources follow: — At Barkway, in the northeastern hills, Abbot Adam of St. John Baptist’s, Col- chester, conceded to Robert le Moine, about 1200, ““mesagium cum una acra terre et dimidiam [sic] iuxta fontem qui uocatur Bedewelle et aliud mesagium . . . cum dimidia acra et tres acras cum prato eiusdem latitudinis extra forum de Berqueia et unam acram et dimidiam penes Bruneslawe et duas acras et dimidiam iuxta Suineslauue et septem acras in Hocfeld et unam acram et dimidiam in campo de Ried et unam acram iuxta Tieuesstrate et octo acras que adjacent ad Tieuesstrate et unam acram et dimidiam super Malmhelle et tres acras que extendunt super Holeuueie et quinque acras in campo de Ried ..” (Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Johannis Baptiste Colecestria, ed. S. A. Moore, Roxburghe Club, 2 vols., 1897, ii. 630). 380 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Unfortunately, however, virgates are seldom described so fully as they are in the instance just quoted, although the statement that a messuage accompanies the parcels often shows that tenants’ holdings are in question. The characteristics of open field — small parcels in several localities and sometimes two parcels in the same furlong — are usually apparent in these terriers. Prac- tically all of them, however, fail to group parcels according to two or three fields. The only item suggesting such a grouping is from Stanstead, where in the thirteenth century thirty arable acres were divided among three fields as follows: — “In campo qui vocatur Alfladesfelde quindecem acras et in campo qui vocatur Kyngesfelde decem acras et in campo qui vocatur Bokkeberwefeld quinque acras.”’! Even these acres, it should be noted, were unaccompanied by a messuage and were unequally divided among the fields. Since this is only one of a long series of Stanstead grants, and since all the others apportion their acres unequally among fields, there is At Munden a fine of 15 John enumerates six acres as follows: — “7 acram in Netherlee iuxta essartum et ad chevicias illius acre unam rodam et dimidiam et Infra essartum duas acras et i rodam et in Hertwelleschote dimidiam acram et in campo qui vocatur Pucheleslee unam acram et dimidiam .. . et in eodem campo unam acram et dimidiam et in Buttes unam rodam et dimidiam et in Bradecroft duas acras et dimidiam et ad chevicias de Sewanesfeld unam rodam et in eodem campo de Sewanesfeld tres rodas cum forera et unam acram bosci”’ (Ped. Fin., 84-7-29). A grant at Stanstead, typical of many that occur in the Waltham cartulary, runs as follows: — ““Concessi viginti acras terre mee arabilis in villa de Stanstede, scilicet, duas acras terre et dimidiam cum mesuagio que sunt ex opposito molendini de Stanstede et tres acras et dimidiam super Ketteshell et unam et dimidiam ulterius in eodem campo et ex opposito de Ketteshell ex parte altera duas acras et unam rodam .. . et quinque rodas terre et dimidiam ultra le Newestrate . . . et duas acras et unam rodam ad quercum . .. . et duas acras ulterius in eodem campo et unam croftam cum sepibus et fossatis continentem quatuor acras iuxta mesuagium Jordani Partryke ... et unum mesuagium cum crofta quod vocatur hosgodeshamstall quod continet tres TOdAS s.;..5 et tres acras prati mei et dimidiam ” (Harl. MS. 4800, f. 146). 1 Harl. MS. 48009, f. 1470. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 381 no reason for interpreting the passage as evidence of the existence of a three-field system. Hertfordshire testimony of the thirteenth century thus concurs with that of the sixteenth. Although from the first the county probably had numerous enclosures and considerable woodland, there was doubtless in the more open regions an abundance of open field. This field was, however, irregular in character, the parcels of arable, so far as can be seen, not being grouped by furlongs into two or three large areas. On the contrary, the fields were, as in Surrey, numerous, often curiously named, and pre- sumably small. The origin and affiliation of such a field system can best be discussed in connection with similar questions regard- ing the other counties of the lower Thames valley. Middlesex and the Chilterns THE western half of Middlesex retained much open field until the period of parliamentary enclosure. Slater’s list of acts includes the names of nearly all the townships of this part of the county, and considerable of the area tabulated must have been arable. From the eastern half, however, only two townships figure in his enumeration, Enfield and Edmonton. ‘To the latter the enclosure act assigns 1231 acres, but a Jacobean survey makes it clear that not more than 500 of them can have been arable common field.!. The 3540 acres mentioned in the Enfield act undoubtedly comprised a certain amount of arable, since the reporter to the Board of Agriculture in 1793 bewails the existence of “a large tract of common field land watered by the New River, at present condemned to lie fallow every third year.” ? The Jacobean survey of Edmonton just mentioned illustrates well the irregular field system of eastern Middlesex. The village lies halfway between London and Waltham abbey in the valley of the Lea, not far from the point where the three counties of Hertfordshire, Middlesex, and Essex meet. Most of the numer- ous tenants held a few acres of customary land, although the 1 Land Rev., M. B. 220, ff. 110-185. j 2 T. Baird, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Middlesex (London, 1793), D- 36. 382 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS messuages were often freeholds leased by them.' Fully half the township lay in closes, usually pasture land, and many ten- ants had parcels in the common marsh. Over and above the pasture and marsh there was considerable unenclosed arable di- vided into many fields, in most of which three or four tenants had parcels. These fields, numbering about a dozen, seldom con- tained more than twenty acres apiece. Typical of them were Langhedge, Okefeld, Hegfeeld, Dedfeeld, all of which appear in the holdings reproduced in Appendix VI. Only one open-field area, that called “le Hyde,” was large and shared in by many tenants. It was quite normal for a tenant to have, along with his enclosed pasture, arable acres in le Hyde and in perhaps one other area, an irregular arrangement which was of course in- compatible with a two- or three-field system. This being the situation in eastern Middlesex, it only remains to inquire whether conditions were similar in the rest of the county. In the west the nearest approach to a three-field arrangement appears at Feltham. This township, situated in the plain of the Thames, on the highway from Staines to Hampton, is described in a survey of 2 James I.2 At that time the fields were three, with names reminiscent of the midlands (Further field, Middle field, Home field), and the copyholds were divided with more or less equality among them. It may well be that this was a town- ship cultivated in the midland manner.’ Elsewhere the evidence tells against the creeping of midland habits down the Thames. Cold Kennington, the village that gave its name to the manor which embraced Feltham, had not three fields but two, and in the holdings that are specifically de- scribed (four of the six are not) the division of acres between these 1 A dozen of the copyholds have been summarized in Appendix VI. * Summaries of the most important copyholds are given in Appendix VI. 3 Slater’s intimation that three fields were enclosed by the Cowley and Hilling- don enclosure act (English Peasantry, p. 287) should not mislead us. The peti- tion for this act asks that “‘ certain Common Fields called Cowley Field, Church Adcroft, and Sudcrofts ” be divided between the two parishes as well as apportioned anew to the tenants and enclosed. These fields were, therefore, not those of a three-field township, but fields that chanced to be common to two townships. Nor are their names the usual ones for three important fields. Cf. Journal of the House of Commons, 21 Jan., 35 Geo. III. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 383 fields was irregular.1 An Elizabethan terrier of Harleston farm, which was the property of All Souls College and had its open-field lands in Willesdon, after enumerating the closes, proceeds with the open-field parcels, which it locates in seven fields or shots and in two meadows.’ From the thirteenth century, also, the specifications.of Middle- sex virgates fail to suggest two or three fields. At East Green- ford a fine of 4 John describes a half-virgate as comprising 9 acres in Lukemere and 3 in the field “ toward Bramte,” while East field and West field receive only 13 acres each.? At Laleham the fourth of a virgate is assigned in a thirteenth-century transfer to seven localities, four of which were furlongs. To be sure, the Laleham enclosure map of 1803 dubs the small open field above the village North field and the large one below it South field; 5 1 The survey is combined with that of Feltham, just referred to (Land Rev., M. B. 220, ff. 97-98). William Newmann had a messuage, a close of one acre, and 23 acres of arable in Court field, 154 in West field; Anthony Taylor had a messuage, a close of four acres, and 23 acres in Court field, 13 in West field. 2 All Souls MSS., Terrier 32 (1593). The distribution of open-field acres is as follows: — Hungerhill, $, 4, ¢,%,2,4,4,3,3,3,8 3 2 & & & 4, 14 [= 83 acres] Knowles shoot, 3, 3, 4, } [= 12 acres] [= 6 acres] The great marshe mead, ¢, 4, 4, 4, 8) 8) 2,1, 3 ) 8 8 ) # 4) 8 13 [= 94 acres] The little marshe mead, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3 [= 6 acres] IsdeayetatlllGh, 235 i gay i 7 Ep ip Bn Uo Lge re om ro co Len bm Les [= 15% acres] Meesdonn field, 1, 4 [= 13 acres] Little manicrofts, +, 3, 3 [= 1 acre] There is also a map showing the closes and open-field strips of the farm (Typus Collegii, ii, maps 18-22). 3 ““ vi acras terre in Lukemere versus occidentem et in eodem campo tres acras versus orientem et in campo qui se extendit versus bramte [?] duas acras versus astrum et in eodem campo versus ecclesiam iliii particas terre pro i acra versus aquilonem et in Estfeld i acram et dimidiam versus Horsendune et in Westfeld i acram et dimidiam versus eundem Horsendune”’ (Ped. Fin., 146-2-24). 4 Ped. Fin., 146-3-22. The distribution is as follows: — “Tn Langfurland tres perticatas terre ex parte Occidentali et in Middelfurlang dimidiam acram ex parte orientali et in Brocfurlang dimidiam acram ex parte Occidentali et in Retherford dimidiam acram ex parte orientali et in Brache unam perticatam ex parte orientali et in Shelpe dimidiam acram prati ex parte Occidentali et in Bottefurlang unam perticatam prati ex parte Occidentali.” SiG Er Rec. ho: 43) Geor ll irin: 384 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS but these names must have been merely topographical, since, apart from the divergence in the size of the fields, a township in this fertile region could hardly at any time have been tilled under a two-course rotation. Indeed, we know that in the near-by township of Sutton, held by the canons of St. Paul’s, the three- course rotation usual on the demesnes of their manors was early employed.! It is probable that the Sutton demesne was unen- closed,? although the names of the divisions in which it lay, as well as the area assigned to each, preclude the midland system of two or three large fields.* Thus the earlier Middlesex evidence is in conflict with that of the Jacobean survey of Feltham, the three seventeenth-century fields of which township must have been exceptional. If it be true that the midland field system did appear in the Middlesex plain, there is no doubt that the manifestations of it there were isolated from the midland area by the interposition of a different system, one which followed the Chilterns to the Thames and crossed it east of Reading. For the evidence from this Chiltern region regarding irregular fields is full and con- vincing. If we follow the river up from Windsor into the mid- land plain, we shall in so doing have an opportunity to observe Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire townships on the one hand and those of Berkshire on the other. The Buckinghamshire reporters to the Board of Agriculture stated that the occupiers of the common fields of Horton (500 acres), Wraysbury (200 acres), Dachet (750 acres), Upton (1500 acres), Eton (300 acres), and Dorney (600 acres), all townships lying near Eton, “‘ have exploded entirely the old usage of two crops and a fallow and have a crop every year.” * May not this deviation in 1794 from the three-course rotation which prevailed ! A lease of 1283 specifies that 44 acres were sown with corn and 18 with rye or mixtilion, 60 with oats and 12 with barley, while 64 lay fallow (MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul’s, Lib. I, f. 24). * A measurement of 1299 attributes its acres to various quarentenes (ibid., f. 335). % There were in all go acres in Suthfeld, 47 in Breche, 9 in Hamstal, 36 in Est- feld, 9 in Northfeld, 66 in Westfeld, 22 in Eldefeld (ibid., f. 33). * W. James and J. Malcolm, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Buckingham (London, 1794), p. 27. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 385 elsewhere in the county have been facilitated by the existence of fields already irregular ? The reporters do not tell us when the change took place, but it may have been long before they wrote. Most instructive in showing the character of Buckinghamshire open fields in this region is a survey of Farnham Royal made in 6 James I. Although by far the greater part of the manor was enclosed, some 250 acres of unenclosed field are described.1_ While there were four recurring common fields, the system was by no means a four-field one, nor was it even reminiscent of two fields. The acres were unequally apportioned, Hawthorne field receiving most of them and any field being liable to neglect. If in the eighteenth century the fields of all the townships round Eton were like those of Farnham two centuries before, transition from a three-course husbandry was invited by the location of the ten- ants’ acres. Ascending the Thames past Henley, we come into the small plain about Reading, where the valley widens just east of the main ridge of the Chilterns. Regarding sixteenth-century fields here we are instructed by two useful surveys of townships within five miles of Reading — those relating to Sonning, Berkshire, and Caversham, Oxfordshire. | Since the Sonning survey is arranged according to three tithings, the tenants and fields of which differ, we have in it, so far as tillage is concerned, the record of three independent townships.” The tithing of Okingham was practically enclosed. A yard-land there usually consisted of some twenty enclosed acres, for the most part arable. At times there were from two to four acres in an open field, but such fields are too insignificant to merit at- tention. More open was the tithing of Wynnershe, several of the copyholds of which have been summarized in Appendix VI. Occasionally yard-lands were here enclosed (e. g., those of Agnes Astell and Robert Phillipps), but most of them had con- siderable arable and some meadow in the fields. This arable, 1 The holdings which contain most of it are transcribed in Appendix VI. * The tenants of the several tithings have rights of pasture in the same commons. 3 Land Rev., M. B. 202, ff. 74-82: 386 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS apart from a few outlying acres, was disposed within a group of three fields (Demys, Whetershe, Benhams) or, if not in these, within another group of four (Stony, Goswell, Old Orchard, Rudges). Whichever group, however, a yard-land favored, among the fields themselves there was no equal apportionment of acres. If a three-field system employing six fields had ever been in force, here it had fallen into decay, a supposition which the presence of numerous enclosures renders not incredible. The third tithing, the one called by the parish name of Sonning, was not unlike Wynnershe.! Although at times a holding there was enclosed (e.g. the half yard-land of John Gregory), most of the cultivated land lay in open field. Of the four fields which most often recur, to the one called Bulmershe there was seldom assigned more than an acre, whereas Charfielde frequently received a greater number of acres than did all the remaining fields together. A three-field system can hardly have been constructed on such foundations. Across the river from Sonning is Caversham, which the survey of 5 Edward VI pictures as already largely enclosed. The vir- gate holdings in this township show that frequently not more than between one-fifth and one-tenth of a tenant’s land lay in the open fields! Yet the fields were numerous, a dozen of them being mentioned and a half-dozen often recurring. Usually a holding had its acres in only three or four of them, and then with no regularity. Small fields which, like these, played so slight a part in the economy of a township could easily depart from any systematic cultivation without inconvenience to their tenants, and apparently those at Caversham had done so. If a three-field or a six-field arrangement ever existed there, it had disappeared before the middle of the sixteenth century. Passing farther up the Thames, we reach the outposts of the region of irregular fields. These lay in Oxfordshire, either on the northwestern slopes of the Chilterns or in the bottom lands below. Watlington and Ewelm represent the former, Warbor- ough and Bensington the latter. Typical holdings from Jacobean surveys of each of these four townships, which are situated near 1 Tilustrative holdings are given in Appendix VI. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 387 one another, are summarized in Appendix VI. In all four open field largely predominated. The number of fields, however, varied from township to township, and the acres held by indi- vidual tenants were nowhere evenly divided among the fields. Ewelm perhaps approached most closely to the midland arrange- ment. Three open fields, Grove, Middle, and Church, frequently recur, and in three or four instances the tripartite division of the open-field acres of a holding was nearly achieved. In many cases, however, one or more of these fields are disregarded, while as many as a dozen others are mentioned. At both Watlington and Bensington there were about a dozen fields, in from one to seven of which the acres of a tenant might lie. No group of three fields stood prominently forth in either township, nor can a six- field arrangement be discovered. The fourth of the townships, Warborough, did to be sure, have six fields; but here too, if we try to combine any three with any other three, we shall get such improbable apportionments of tenants’ acres as 4, 13, 83. Since there are several such inequalities for each equitable division, we are forced to consider the open fields intractable like those of the other townships. It may be added that nineteenth-century enclosure plans and awards concerned with these four places evince no regularity in field arrangements. To judge, then, from all the instances noticed above, it seems probable that the irregu- lar fields of Surrey and Middlesex extended into the Chiltern region of the three counties to the west, and came to an end only when they reached the plain of southeastern Oxfordshire. Essex THE early field system of few English counties is so difficult to describe as that of Essex. At the time when records of it were first made, much of the county was already enclosed. The earliest evidence thus assumes peculiar importance, but since it is of a fragmentary nature it forbids any but tentative conclusions. Like Kent, Essex was referred to in the sixteenth century as one of those counties “‘ wheare most Inclosures be.”’! A descriptive 1 John Hales, A Discourse of the Common Weal of this Realm of England (1540, ed. E. Lamond, Cambridge, 1893), p. 49. 388 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS rental of St. Paul’s manor of Heybridge in 1675, and a plan of New College’s manor of Homechurch Hall in 1662, show closes only,! and so do various accounts of late sixteenth-century conditions. A two-hundred-page survey of Westham, a short one of the manor of Lawford Hall, an excellent one of East- wood Bury, a plan of four “ tenements ” in Woodham Ferrers, describe enclosures.2, From the times of Henry VIII and Ed- ward IV we hear principally of crofts in a detailed rental of Rivenhall, in the fragment of a survey of Sandon, in extracts from the court rolls of Crepinghall, in a description of tenants’ hold- ings at Newhall in Boreham, and in a full account of the manor of Wikes.* Finally, fourteenth- and fifteenth-century terriers of the lands of various chantries at Colchester seem to be concerned mainly if not altogether with enclosures.‘ Such evidence might raise the question, as it did in Kent, whether common arable fields ever existed, and the topography of the county might suggest that Essex was isolated from its western neighbors by stretches of forest through which open-field usages never found their way. It is true in a measure that the western boundary of the county was reinforced by tracts of for- est. Toward Hertfordshire lay Hatfield Chase, toward Middle- sex the wider reach of Epping. These forests, however, seem not to have acted as barriers to colonization or communication. To judge from the frequency with which Domesday hamlets were scattered throughout them, their settlement was not long de- layed; ®> and the numerous possessions of Waltham abbey within the bounds of Epping at an early period indicate that communica- tion with the home manor to the west cannot have been difficult. There is thus no topographical reason why western Essex should 1 MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul’s, Press A, Box 62; Rawl. MS. B 311. : Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 425, ff. 1-113, 3 Jas. 1; Add. MS. 34649, 1 Jas.; Rawl. MS. B 308, 8 Eliz.; Harl. MS. 6697, ff. 20-24, 21 Eliz. 3 Rents. and Survs., Portf. 2/44, 7/47; ibid., Ro. 196, 3 Edw. IV; Treas. of Receipt, M. B. 163, f. 47. 4 Philip Morant, History and Antiquities of the County of Essex (2 vols., Chelms- ford, 1816), i. 150-158. 5 See the Domesday map in Victoria History of Essex, i. 426-427; also W. R. Fisher, The Forest of Essex, London, 1887. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 389 have been isolated from Hertfordshire and Middlesex in its field systems. Nor does it seem to have been. The dividing line in field usages, passed through the county rather than along the border, and set apart the northwest as a region indistinguishable from Hertfordshire in the aspect of its open fields. In the central and southeastern part of the county, however, different arrange- ments and possibly Kentish affinities are perceptible. The northwest is a continuation of the Hertfordshire highlands, that here form part of the boundary of the midland plain. In Essex the river Cam, flowing northward, issues from the hills, which are noticeably lower than in Hertfordshire. From both the valley and the hill region we have several terriers that agree in demonstrating the prevalence of open fields in this part of the county. In every way these fields were similar to those of Hert- fordshire, and especially noteworthy is the fact that the numer- ous parcels of a holding were never grouped as if lying in two or three large arable areas. 5 In some terriers the parcels were seldom larger than an acre and were widely dispersed throughout the fields: At Wenden, for example, the six acres which in 8 John formed part of a virgate were located in twelve places.!. At other times several parcels fell within one of the open-field divisions, the names of which were of the most varied sort, often being reminiscent of hill and woodland. Fifteen acres at Arkesden which were given to the monks at Walden early in the fourteenth century are illustrative of conditions in the district. The twenty parcels were located as follows, the areas being in acres: — “in campo qui vocatur Newey, 1, ¢ “in campo qui vocatur Mapeldeneswell, 14, 7 I “in campo qui vocatur Apostolgrove, 2, 7 “in campo qui vocatur Witedune, ? “in campo qui vocatur Blakedune, ?, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2 “jn campo qui vocatur Stockyng, 1 “in campo qui vocatur Burgatesshot, 1 “in campo qui vocatur Sevenacres, ? “in campo qui vocatur Langeland, ?, > “in campo qui vocatur Wyndemelnessot, {.”’ ? 1 Feet of Fines for Essex (ed. R. E. G. Kirk, Essex Archaeol. Soc., 1899, etc.), i. 37 (no. 197). 2 Harl. MS. 3607, f. 143). a! 72 390 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS Elsewhere the parcels were larger, and might seem to have been closes were it not that the field names and the assignment of more than one parcel to the same field division reassure us. A list of such parcels in the following terrier is illustrative of some sixty pages of similar matter in the Walden cartulary, and es- tablishes the existence of open fields at Saffron Walden, in the upper valley of the Cam: — *“* due acre in Benepistel sex acre et una roda quarum unum caput extendit super manlond .. . due acre super Sortegravehill . . . due acre super Sortegravehill que vocantur le Gorey . . . una acra et tres rode in eodem campo tres acre et una roda super Putemannesdole tres acre et una roda et quarta pars unius rode in Goredlond septem acre et tres rode in Middelsot dimidia acra ex opposito Eustachii de Broc una acra . . . in eodem campo.” } The Dunmow cartulary takes us a little farther toward the center of the county and fixes the probable limit of open field. There can, for instance, be no doubt about its existence at Hen- ham, where ten acres were disposed in seven parcels among various field divisions.2. At Henham, too, we hear of “ totam dalam terre . . . que iacet apud le’ ’helz de Rokey inter terram Radulfi Rafur et terram Galfridi Dolling. Et dalam illam in eodem campo inter terram Arnulfi et Rogeri le hog.” * These dales recall the open fields of northern England, and in the guise of “‘ doles” recur elsewhere in this region. * Just to the west of Henham a fine of 40 Henry III locates sixteen acres at Manewden in nine parcels.> Other instances of scattered parcels hereabouts are available, but perhaps enough have been adduced to show 1 Harl. MS. 3697, f. 89b. 2 Harl. MS. 662, f. 59b. The acres were distributed as follows: — 3} in Bermvelehe 4 in Hofeld z in viclande 3 in Coperdenefeld 1} in Cockesdenefeld 1 in crofto meo 3 Ibid., f. 58d. 4 Land in Alsewic, Herts, is specified as seven doles, each separately described (ibid., f. 116). At Middleton one of the parcels in a holding was in the fourteenth century described as one “‘ dole terre continens i acram que vocatur Sheppelond in Sturfeld (Rents. and Survs., Portf. 25/17). 5 Kirk, Essex Fines, i. 216 (no. 1286). THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 391 that there can be no hesitation in assigning this corner of the county to the province of open field. Its open fields, however, were not of the midland type, but resembled those of Hertford- shire. So far as can be seen, parcels were not arranged with a view to a two- or three-course husbandry accompanied by pas- turage of the fallow. The terminations dene, dune (done), and lee suggest, further, furlongs in a woodland area; and it is possible that a township’s arable arose from the continued assarting of the waste, with an adaptation, but no adoption, of midland arrangements. Throughout all of the county except the northwestern corner traces of open-field husbandry are slight. Seldom, even in the early fines or charters, do we meet with the series of small parcels which betray the presence of intermixed arable strips. Since these fines are both numerous and specific and do not fail to ascribe small parcels to the northwest,! their failure to record similar phenomena in the remainder of the county becomes a telling negative argument against the existence of open arable fields there. Later Essex surveys and terriers have the objectionable habit of merely reciting the parcels of the tenants’ holdings without grouping or describing them in any way. ‘The sixteenth-century documents referred to at the beginning of this chapter are useful in that they go so far as to indicate which parcels were closes. What we should like to know, however, is the character and ap- pearance of the primitive villein holding. Inspection of the fines and extents reveals the fact that the Essex unit was often the virgate or yardland.? It appears as such on three of St. Paul’s manors in 1222,? and on many Waltham manors tenants held virgates.* There were at Bocking in the thirteenth century 22} virgates, 10 “‘ forlands,”’ and 7 half-forlands, each forland doing 1 Cf., in addition to instances already cited, 6 acres in 13 parcels at Heydon, and 53 acres in 4 parcels at Birchanger (Kirk, Essex Fines, i. 41, 61,9 John, no. 228, and 6 Hen. III, no. 91). 2 Tbid., 9 sq. passim. 3 Beauchamp, Wickham, Tidwoldington: W. H. Hale, Domesday of St. Paul’s, Camden Soc., 1858, pp. 27, 33, 52- 4 E.g., Woodford, Nettleswell (13th century): Cott. MS., Tiber. CIX, ff. 2055-210. 392 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS one-fourth as many days’ week-work as a virgate.! Virgates are also found at Berneston in 13 Henry VI and at Felsted Bury in 41 Edward III.2 Sometimes, however, the villein unit took less committal names. At Hadley there were 22} “terre,” and 6 ‘““moneday londs,”’ the services from each being given in detail. Lalling, described in the same series, had 123 “‘ terre ”’ from which villein services were due.* Elsewhere no name whatever is given to the unit; in the thirteenth-century enumeration of services due at Borley, for example, we find merely “ de singulis xx acris terre.” > Although information to the effect that the virgate or a corres- ponding unit was the standard villein holding can be deduced from the extents and from Domesday,’ it is impossible to discover from them or from other documents hitherto cited what was the aspect of the virgate. For that reason the later descriptions contained in a Jacobean survey are of importance. The survey in question describes the large manor of Barking in southwestern Essex, not far from London. Although for the most part it neg- lects to group the acres of its holdings in any way, there are happy exceptions, of which the three following descriptions are typical: — ‘“‘Tdem Johanis [Trewlove] similiter tenet unam virgatam terre custmumarie et heriottalis vocatam Coryes .. . iacentem ex parte orientali de le Fyve Elmes in Daggenham cum vi denariis redditus annuatim percipiendis de una crofta terre vocata Whites continente per estimationem iii acras que nuper fuit par- cella predicte virgate terre; de qua quidem virgata terre quatuor clausa continent per estimationem xii acras terre arabilis insimul iacentia inter terram . . . et tres alia clausa residuum predicte virgate . . . continent per estimationem vii acras terre arabilis 1 MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, Lib. B, ff. 115), 132. 2 Rents. and Survs., D. of Lanc. Portf. 2/5; ibid., Ro. 188. 3 Add. MS. 6160, f. 68 (early 14th century). + Ibid., £. 69. 5 MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, Lib. B, f. 143. 6 e. g., at Horndon, Liston, Creping Hall, East Donyland, etc.: Victoria History of Essex, i. 560-566. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 393 et iili acras bosci et insimul iacent super terram Jacobi Har- wey tit “Thomas Humfrey tenet sibi et heredibus suis per copiam . unam virgatam terre custumarie et heriottalis vocatam long- yerd . . . continentem per estimationem vii acras terre arabilis et septem acras bosci abuttantes super Blackhethe versus bo- riam et venellam ducentem a le kings highway versus . . . et terram nuper Thome Pruey .. . versus Austrum et terram Josephi Haynes armigeri versus boriam. . . . ‘“« Johannes Pragle tenet per copiam . . . unam virgatam terre . vocatam Beesdown ab antiquo Roughlands continentem per estimationem Novemdecim Acras terre arabilis iacentem in pa- rochia de Dagenham abuttantem super terram liberam predicti Johanis versus occidentem et terram nuper Thome Cowper vo- catam Sawgors versus boriam et terram Roberti Scott generosi et terram pertinentem le Almeshouse de Romford versus occi- dentem.”’ ! Two of the above virgates consisted of arable and woodland, the third of arable only. While the first of the three comprised two groups of closes probably separate, the others were compact areas, and, though nothing is said about their being enclosed, such was without doubt their condition. The nature of the virgate of southwestern Essex at the end of the sixteenth century thus becomes apparent. It was sometimes, at least, a compact area usually divided into closes of arable and woodland. The testimony of earlier documents confirms that of the Bark- ing survey. A glebe terrier at Kelvedon declared in 1356 that the vicar should “‘ have 62 acres of arable land whereof 52 acres lie together near the aforesaid mansion in one field called the Churchfield with the hedge adjoining, and nine acres in a field called Lyndeland as enclosed with hedges and ditches.” ? Most important of the early documents, however, are the feet of fines. After 1235, to be sure, they rarely mention virgates, but the fol- lowing descriptions are informing. At Dunmow, which was near the open-field part of the county, the fourth of a virgate was 1 Land Rev., M. B. 214, ff. 285, 312, 318. 2 Essex Archaeol. Soc., Trans., new series, 1911, Xi. 7. 394 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS specified in 3 Henry III as one-half of a messuage, ‘‘ with the field called Wudelehe, and with a moiety of Smithescroft.””! At Laver, in 5 John, the half of a virgate consisted of “all the land which lies between Bredenewell and the wood towards the west, and 3 acres of land which lie between the road (cheminum) of the same town and the wood towards the north.”’? Lastly, at Havering in the southwest 50 acres were in 15 John taken from one and one-half virgates and located in such a way as to be- speak complete enclosure.* Thirteenth- as well as sixteenth-century accounts of Essex vir- gates thus describe them as being largely consolidated; nowhere, except in the northwestern part of the county were they com- posed of small scattered parcels. Mention of them in the fines and charters becomes so infrequent after the first quarter of the thirteenth century as to render generalization somewhat unsafe, but the evidence at hand points unanimously and unmistakably to the largely consolidated virgate as characteristic of much of the county. The case is strengthened by the descriptions of numer- ous holdings which were not virgates. These, too, were composed, not of small scattered strips, but of larger areas which may have been little separated. Certainly the impression carried away from a perusal of the Essex fines is very different from that given by the fines of most other English counties. One feels that they resemble rather closely the equally unusual fines of Kent. If, whether in terrier or survey, we trust to the appearance of the virgate holdings or even to the aspect of holdings of any sort, we shall be inclined to ally the greater part of Essex with its southern neighbor in respect to its field arrangements. 1 Kirk, Essex Fines, i. 52 (no. 209). 2 Tbid., i. 32 (no. 146). . . 5 . iy 3 Thid., i. 46 (no. 257). The locations were as follows: — 2 acres in the croft called Hamstall 18 acres in the croft called Nortfeld 5 acres in the croft called Laiacre Iz acres in the croft called Phistelcroft 5 acres in the croft called Brigfeld 9 acres in the croft called La Dune. THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 395 Conclusion BEFORE summarizing the results of this chapter we may profit- ably give a little attention to another group of early sources which has elsewhere been of some value in determining the char- acter of early field systems. This is the series of extents con- tained in the inquisitions post mortem. By explaining whether the acres of demesne lands lay one-half or one-third fallow and in common, these extents have heretofore supplemented the evi- dence got by locating in the fields the parcels of the holdings.1 Fourteenth-century records of this kind from the midland coun- ties have frequently assured us that the demesne was thus fallow and common; others from East Anglia, while they have revealed the same three-course rotation as prevailed on common lands in the sixteenth century, have not forced us to conclude that a three- field system was existent at the earlier period any more than at the later one, when, as we know, it did not prevail. Kentish ex- tents, on the other hand, have in our examination of them not admitted the possibility that demesne lands in Kent ever lay one- third fallow and in common. If, as occasionally happens, one- third of them are said to have lain fallow, the value put upon the pasturage of these shows that during the fallow season they were not open to common use.? Furthermore, we have found Kentish demesne sown yearly and valued as high as 12d. the acre, an undoubted indication of superior agriculture. It is time now to inquire whether any information, relative either to improved tillage of the demesne or to the distribution of demesne acres between two or three common fields, is available from the extents of the counties of the lower Thames valley. Al- though, like the other documents from this region, these extents are annoyingly noncommittal, those of the decade 7-16 Edward III, which have hitherto been referred to, give testimony of a general character. In the first place, it is noteworthy that the 1 Cf. above, p. 46, pp. 301-302. 2 “ Sunt ibidem ciii** acre terre arabilis que valent per annum quando seminan- sees quadrigesimali v**x acre ” (C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 65 (11), Throwley). 396 ENGLISH FIELD SYSTEMS highly-valued demesne acres of Kent nowhere appear. Valua- tions of the arable do not differ particularly from those of the midlands or of East Anglia, but range, like them, from 4d. to 8d. the acre. In the second place, statements, usual in the midland or East Anglian extents, to the effect that one-half or one-third of the demesne acres were without value because each year they lay fallow and in common, seldom occur in similar documents from the counties of the lower Thames. Surrey furnishes no such declarations in the extents of the decade referred to; Middlesex contributes the curious information that one-third of certain de- mesne acres were intermixed fallow and yet retained a consider- able value; ! the Hertfordshire instances, of which there are four, relate to townships near the northern border of the county;? and in the numerous Essex extents only once does the phrase charac- teristic of the midlands occur.’ Not that there are in the extents of the decade in question no other traces of common usages or of the three-course rotation of crops. On the contrary, demesne acres are sometimes said to lie in common from the end of harvest till January,‘ and a three-course rotation was at times practiced 1 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 66 (32), Parva Greenford: ‘‘ Sunt ibidem vi** acre terre pretium cuiuslibet acre de iiii** iiii d. et residue xxxx acre iacent frisce inter friscas aliorum hominum que valent per annum quelibet acra ii d.” 2 Ibid., F. 42 (18), Offley: ‘‘ Et residuum predicte terre, viz., cc acre iacent in communi et valent per annum quum seminantur xxxxis. vilid. . . . et quum non seminantur nihil valent per annum quia per totum annum iacent in communi.” Ibid., F. 52 (7), Berkhamstead: ‘‘ Sunt ibidem ccc acre terre arabilis quarum duo partes seminabantur ante mortem predicte Johannis et tertia pars iacet ad warectam et in communi. . . et quando non seminatur nihil valet quia iacet in communi.” Ibid., F. 64 (20), Reed: “‘ Sunt ibidem c acre terre arabilis que valent per annum Xxxs. illid. ... Et inde seminantur ante mortem predicti Thorne iii**x acre et residuum iacet in communi.” Ibid., F. 64 (20), Widdiall: ‘‘ Sunt ibidem ccc acre terre quarum cc valent per annum lxvis. viiid. . . . Et inde seminabantur hoc anno semine yemali et quad- ragesimali cxxxx acre. Et residuum iacet ad warectam et in communi.” 3 Tbid., F. 61 (10), Tolleshunt: “ Sunt ibidem cciiii**v acre terre arabilis de quibus due partes possunt seminari per annum et tunc valet acra per annum quando seminatur iiiid. . . . et totum residuum nihil valet quia iacet ad warectam et in communi per totum annum.” * Tbid., F. 38 (1), Moulsey, Surrey: ‘‘ Sunt Ix acre terre arabilis que valent per annum xxs. . . . et non plus ‘quia iacent in communi a festo sancti Petri ad vinculos usque ad festum Purificationis beate Marie.’ THE LOWER THAMES BASIN 397 upon enclosed demesne.'! Of evidence, however, which proves the practice of three-course husbandry upon demesne acres lying in common fields there is only the brief amount just cited. Apart from the testimony of four townships in northern Hertfordshire and of one in Essex, we have from a considerable body of extents no suggestion that a three-field system prevailed in the counties of the lower Thames. As to these exceptions, the Hertfordshire townships, lying as they do on the borderland of the midland area, may well have adopted midland husbandry without coming to be in any way abnormal phenomena. The Essex instance, however, is more difficult of explanation. Tolleshunt is situated, not in northwestern Essex on the edge of the midlands, where three fields might be expected, but in the eastern part of the county near the coast. The state- ment, then, that one-third of the demesne lay fallow and com- mon there seems to import into the region the usages that lay behind similar statements in Norfolk and Suffolk extents. In those counties, as we have seen, a three-course rotation of crops * on common fields did not, either in the sixteenth century or in the fourteenth, necessarily imply a three-field system. The same may have been true of Tolleshunt, and the field arrangements there may have been like those with which we have become fami- liar at Weasenham in Norfolk.? Forms oi tillage other than a three-course rotation of crops were also known in te tek > = it Loy tt: sccm thy eave yashess Me 5G fyi fyindiy j 5 38. hae Pry pei, TD a ‘au ees “ae , gerktranostian winch i haben: Ore: ogy brags, -. ri B himinidebiou fe cotintiea HO AAG EA race at Bg Tat mSince ating Feat sO o's, a ; gaa ; “ arn ' ’ 7 = let i A Ss AY uta tie AL $0 i tb emo ete oS hoi eaR. ts : ' 14 ’ rasta) one | a aS i! ‘ ~ Z a VTE \? ji , See | a bo = + . by : = Ay ’ < . ie a -? : ‘ ory y - ' Me's : { a : by — . , rm et | ' P ‘ t y +4 5 a P : ‘ yak, ae eke 7 7 @ ee = . o *¢ ' f rvinstelace ‘ s} ’ ”, , 7 a ee! 2) ea . i jis ' iV, es es ' | . : iz eo ‘ : ‘ 7 - 7 ) x ¢ ’ ‘ ' > ” * ig s ‘ + a ir Ss. ¢ : ‘ rah, ¥ i hs el } Leet d Va ae Seg - « %, - ‘. & yay. a th iytat fe ’ ' “TT 7 Lr ’ AES we in| a ? & yi i LErST > petda ¥ ia ee obs: et mf 4? 3 ard we be Sie Fi » + - . é Ef a = i APPENDIX I A. EXTRACTS FROM A SURVEY OF KINGTON, WILTSHIRE Harl. MS. 30961, ff. 40-62. g Henry VIII KYNGTON TERRARIUM Omnium Terrarum et tenementorum unacum finibus, Redditibus, et heriectis eiusdem manerii, Factum ibidem mense Marcii Anno Regni Regis Henrici Octavi Nono Et Anno Domini Ricardi Beere Abbatis vicesimo Quinto coram Fratre Thoma Sutton, Cellerario forinseco, per Sacramentum et fidelitatem Ricardi Snelle, prepositi ibidem, Johannis Tanner, Willelmi Neck, Thome Mylle, Thome Coke, Walteri Tourney, Henrici Belle de Langley, Johannis Kyngton, Ricardi Broune, Willelmi Torney, Walteri Amyett, et Thome Amyett de Kyng- tone, ceterorumque tenencium Domini ibidem ad Idem Terrarium vocatorum et distincte examinatorum preter specialem perambula- tionem et mensuracionem factam ibidem atque probatam. COMMUNIA Est ibidem quedam Communa vocata Langleyhethe continens cccx acras ubi dominus et tenentes custumarii communicare possunt cum omnimodis averiis omnitempore anni. Et ulterius Thomas Montague —— heres —— Baroni et Johannes Gangelle et eorum tenentes in Lang- ley communicare possunt in eadem. NUNDINE Sunt ibidem Nundine in festo Sancti Michaelis Archiangeli unde Tolnetum extenditur communibus annis xvi s. FIRMA TERRARUM DOMINICALIUM IBIDEM Ricardus Snell, firmarius Domini, tenet Curiam Dominicalem, viz., Aulam, Cameram, Coquinam, grangiam, boveriam, Domum Columba- rium, et Croftam in boriali parte Curie, continentes insimul ix acras dimidiam. Item tenet xx acras prati in Pekyngelmed A festo Purificationis Beate Marie usque amocionem feni. 421 422 APPENDIX I Item tenet pasturam De Ruydon continentem xxxi Acras i pertica- tam per redditum xiii s. iiii d. solvendo annuatim Prioresse rectricique de Kyngtone in pecuniis pro xi averiis euntibus in predicta pastura per firmarium domini ibidem viii s. vid. ultra xiii s. iiiid. predictos. Item tenet pasturam et subboscum de Ynwode continentes xx acras per redditum iii s. iii d. Item tenet cxxvi acras iii perticatas terre arabilis in duobus Campis unde in Campo orientali in La hamme xiiii acras dimidiam In la Deene iiii acras in ii>“* particulis In Farndelle ix acras dimidiam in iiii® particulis In Sourelond unam acram dimidiam In Middelfurlong xx acras In Manshulle iiii acras dimidiam In Smethyescroft x acras [Total, 543 acres] Et in Campo occidentali in Brechefurlong iiii acras ili perticatas In Brodefurlong xv acras dimidiam In Wellemore x acras dimidiam In Lordeshulle xiii acras Item ibidem ii acras prati In Overlordeshulle xi acras et in Colroft vi acras dimidiam inclusas [Total, 562 acres] Redditus Ixvii s. viii d. Bosci Est ibidem quidam boscus vocatus Haywode continens cccc acras bosci et subbosci unde vendi possunt quolibet anno xxv acre subbosci. si copis bene preservetur et superintendatur pretium acre xiiis. iiii d, et sic quilibet copis recrescet in xvi annis. LIBERI TENENTES IBIDEM Johannes Saunders tenet unum tenementum apud Haywode in feodo quondam Thome Bolehide per redditum annuatim ii aucarum precium viii d. Thomas filius et heres Cristoferi Troponelle tenet unam virgatam terre in feodo quondam Edwardi Basyng et nuper Thome Troponelle APPENDIX I 423 per redditum annuatim vs. ixd. ob. q., unde ad festum Natalis Domini xx d., Pasche xx d., Johannis Baptiste ix d. ob. q., et Sancti Michaelis Archiangeli xx d., et heres eius solvet relevium post mortem, etc. viz., duplicem redditum unius anni. Abbas et conventus de Malmesbury tenet unum mesuagium in feodo in villa de Malmesbury quondam Willelmi de aula per redditum x d. Priorissa De Kyngtone tenet unum mesuagium aut duo in Langleygh unde sectam facit (ut fertur) ad dies legales tentas ibidem bis per annum. TENENTES PER CONSUETUDINES MANERII IBIDEM Dimipit H1IDARII Isabella Russelle vidua tenet dimidiam hidam terre in Kyngton unde messuagium cum Curtillagio continet unam acram et in duobus Clausis annexatis vii acras. Item tenet xlvi acras dimidiam terre arabilis in iib“* Campis unde in Campo orientali in Wydenalle quinque acras dimidiam in iiii* particulis In occidentali parte de Barefurlong dimidiam acram In Sowarlondes ii acras In farendelle iiii acras dimidiam In Hendley iiii acras in iii"* particulis In Smalemede dimidiam acram apud Ellenstubbe i acram In Strottefurlong iiii acras in ii>'* particulis apud la naysshe iii acras in iii>'’ particulis apud Culnerwall unam acram apud Byddelyate dimidiam acram [Total, 263 acres in 19 parcels] Et in Campo occidentali in Bradfurlong iiii acras in ii>"’ particulis In orchadlondes ii acras apud Grovelondeshegge unam acram dimidiam apud la heele ii acras dimidiam In evydeen unam acram dimidiam Item ibidem iiii acras in ii>“’ particulis Super Cowngroveshulle ii acras in ii>"* particulis In Wynewodes ii acras dimidiam in ii>"* particulis [Total, 20 acres in 12 parcels] Et cum obierit dabit domino heriectum. Finis xx s. Redditus xis. 424 APPENDIX I Willelmus Necke De langley tenet dimidiam hidam terre unde mes- suagium cum Curtillagio, gardino, et pomerario continet dimidiam acram, et unum Clausum annexatum continet iiii acras iii perticatas prati. Item xiiii acras dimidiam terre prati et pasture in separali unde in australi parte tenementi sui iii acras dimidiam perticatam, In Northe- close iii acras iii perticatas, In Langcroft iii acras, In Oldelond ii acras iii perticatas, In Hetheloce ii acras. Item tenet xliii acras i perticatam terre arabile in ii*“* Campis unde in Campo boriali In Beerefurlong unam acram in ii>"* particulis Juxta Blakebuysshe dimidiam acram In Clandfeld In overfurlong ii acras in iii>“* particulis In Nitherfurlong unam acram dimidiam in iii>’* particulis apud Thornewell dimidiam acram In Holdeen dimidiam acram In Farendoune iiii*" acras in ii>“* particulis Super Mycheldale ii acras in iiii°* particulis In Netylmede dimidiam acram In Burymede unam acram in ii>"’ particulis In Whytelond unam acram in ii>"’ particulis In Hendley unam acram dimidiam in iii>"* particulis Super Whetehullehed dimidiam acram In Crownefurlong dimidiam acram apud Childaker unam acram in ii>"’ particulis In Millefurlong ii acras in iili*® particulis In Langdowne dimidiam acram In Shorldowne ii acras in v particulis In Walfurlong i acram In Hendley dimidiam acram [Total, 24 acres in 41 parcels] Et in Campo occidentali apud Galleaker dimidiam acram In orientali parte de haywode unam acram dimidiam in iii>"s particulis In Thyckefurlong unam acram in ii" particulis apud Barnardes Shave unam perticatam In Strottefurlong dimidiam acram apud lordeshulle unam acram in ii>"’ particulis apud Northstock i perticatam APPENDIX I 425 apud Jacobescrosse unam acram In la Slade unam acram in ii>"s particulis apud Wecheanger dimidiam acram apud Shortcrosse dimidiam acram In Staperlond dimidiam acram In la More unam acram in ii>"s particulis Juxta Somerleas unam acram In Wydefurlong dimidiam acram In Barrefurlong dimidiam acram In Worthy dimidiam acram apud Blakelond dimidiam acram In Hangyn Cliffe unam acram in ii>"’ particulis apud Merlynpytte dimidiam acram Super Fursehulle i perticatam Super Whetehull unam acram dimidiam in ii>"s particulis In Odgarston i acram in ii" particulis In Pesefurlong dimidiam acram In la hamme i acram in ii>"s particulis In Overhamme unam acram in 1i>"s particulis [Total, 194 acres in 37 parcels] Et cum obierit dabit domino heriectum. Finis cxilis. iiiid. Red- ditus xviis. ix d. ob. [Four other dimidii hidarii have similar holdings.] VIRGATARII Walterus Tourney De Langley virgatarius tenet unum Mesuagium cum curtillagio continenti i perticatam et in iii clausis annexatis x acras iii perticatas. Item tenet unum Toftum cum iii clausis vocatis Jeffryes continenti- bus insimil quinque acras dimidiam. Item tenet xix acras dimidiam terre arabilis in ii’ Campis unde in campo boriali in Barrefurlong unam acram in ii>"’ particulis In Clanfeld unam acram dimidiam in iii>"* particulis Super Mycheldale unam acram in ii>"’ particulis Super Hendlye i acram in ii>"’ particulis In Whytelond dimidiam acram In Boriali parte de Burymede unam acram in ii>"’ particulis In australi parte eiusdem unam acram in ii>"’ particulis apud Chyldaere unam acram in ii>"’ particulis 426 APPENDIX I In Myllof dimidiam acram apud Whetehulhed dimidiam acram In Wallefurlong dimidiam acram In Shortdun dimidiam acram [Total, ro acres in 20 parcels] Et in Campo occidentali apud Galleacre unam acram in ii>“* particulis In orientali parte de Haywode dimidiam acram In Lordeshulle dimidiam acram In Thyckefurlong dimidiam acram In Strettfurlong dimidiam acram In Morefurlong unam acram in ii>"* particulis In Stapefurlong dimidiam acram apud Shortcrosse dimidiam acram In Pessefurlong dimidiam acram In la Worthy dimidiam acram In Odgarstone dimidiam acram In Whetehulle unam acram in ii>"® particulis In la hamme unam acram dimidiam in iii>“* particulis In Wecheanger dimidiam acram [Total, 9} acres in 19 parcels] Et cum obierit dabit domino heriectum. Finis xls. Redditus xiii s. viii d. ob. Willelmus Taylour De Langley virgatarius tenet unum mesuagium et Toftum alterius virgate terre unde Curtillagium continet insimil i perticatam et in uno Clauso annexato quinque acras i perticatam. Item tenet vii acras terre prati et pasture in separali unde in Northe- cloce unam acram iii perticatas, In Oldlondes quinque acras i perti- catam. Item tenet xxx acras iii perticatas terre arabilis in ii>“* Campis unde in Campo boriali in Barrefurlong unam acram in ii“* particulis In Clanfeld dimidiam acram in iii“ particulis In Thornewelfurlong iii perticatas in ii>’* particulis In Mycheldale unam acram dimidiam in iii>"* particulis In Netylmede dimidiam acram In Burymede unam acram in ii>"’ particulis In Child acre unam acram i perticatam in iii>"* particulis In Okeworthe dimidiam acram APPENDIX I 427 In Myllefurlong iii perticatas In Troefurlong dimidiam acram apud Whetehulleshed unam acram dimidiam in iii>¥’ particulis In Wallefurlong dimidiam acram In Langdoune iii perticatas in ii>¥s particulis In Shortdoune dimidiam acram Item ibidem unam acram i perticatam et in Guardeene i acram [Total, 13% acres in 28 parcels] Et in Campo occidentali apud Galleacre unam acram in ii" particulis Subtus Haywode unam acram dimidiam in iii>"’ particulis apud Barnardshave unam perticatam In Strettfurlong dimidiam acram In Thyckefurlong unam acram in ii>"s particulis apud Langcrosse dimidiam acram Super Lordeshulle unam acram in ii" particulis apud Jacobbescrosse i acram in 11>"S particulis In Stapulfurlong dimidiam acram In Somerleas ii acras in iii” particulis In Hangyngcliffe unam acram in ii" particulis In Merlynpytt unam acram in ii" particulis In Whetehull unam acram dimidiam in iii>"S particulis In Odgarston dimidiam acram in ii>"s particulis In Wecheanger unam acram iii perticatas in iiii* particulis In Worthe i perticatam In Pessefurlong i perticatam In la hamme unam acram dimidiam in iii>"’ particulis apud Northstocke unam perticatam [Total, 16} acres in 38 parcels] Et cum obierit dabit domino ii heriecta. Finis xxs. Redditus xxs. [Fifteen other virgatarii have similar holdings.] DimIpiIl VIRGATARII Henricus Belle tenet dimidiam virgatam terre in Langley unde mesuagium cum Curtillagio continet i perticatam et in 1>"* Clausis annexatis vii acras. Item tenet xi acras dimidiam terre arrabilis in ii>"* Campis unde in Campo boreali in Berfurlong dimidiam acram 428 APPENDIX I apud Blakebusshe dimidiam acram In Thornewell dimidiam acram In Mucheldale dimidiam acram In Whitelond unam acram in ii>”’ particulis In henlee i perticatam In Burymedefurlong i perticatam In Whetehulhed dimidiam acram In Millefurlong i perticatam In la Downe unam acram i perticatam in iii>’’ particulis In Overclanfeld dimidiam acram [Total, 6 acres in 14 parcels] Et in Campo occidentali in Lordeshulle iii perticatas Subtus Haywode dimidiam acram In Thickefurlong dimidiam acram In Stretfurlong i perticatam In Churchewaiefurlong dimidiam acram In la More unam acram in ii>"’ particulis In la Hamme i perticatam In Overhamme dimidiam acram In Whetehull dimidiam acram In Berfurlong i perticatam In Hangcliff dimidiam acram [Total, 53 acres in 12 parcels] Et cum obierit dabit domino heriectum. Finis xxs. Redditus vis. lid. ob. Robertus Coke De Langley dimidius virgatarius tenet unam mesua- gium cum Curtillagio continentem dimidiam acram et unum Clausum annexatum continens iiii*™ acras dimidiam. Item tenet unum Clausum pasture apud Northcloce continens ii acras separales. Item tenet xii acras terre arabilis in ii"* Campis unde in Campo boriali apud Barrefurlong unam acram in ii>“* particulis In Clanfelde unam acram in ii>"’ particulis Super Mucheldale dimidiam acram In Henlee dimidiam acram in ii>¥’ particulis In Burymede iii perticatas in ii>¥* particulis In Millefurlong dimidiam acram APPENDIX I 429 In Wallefurlong dimidiam acram In Croefurlong dimidiam acram In Langdoune i perticatam Subtus Langdoune i perticatam In Shortdoune dimidiam acram [Total, 6% acres in 15 parcels] Et in Campo occidentali apud Galleacre dimidiam acram Super Lordeshulle i perticatam Subtus Haywode iii perticatas in ii>"’ particulis apud Fordesyate dimidiam acram In Thyckefurlong dimidiam acram In Strottefurlong i perticatam In la More dimidiam acram In la hamme iii perticatas Super Whetehulle dimidiam acram In Odgarstone unam perticatam In pessefurlong dimidiam acram In Beerfurlong i perticatam In Furcyhulle i perticatam [Total, 5% acres in 14 parcels] Et cum obierit dabit domino heriectum. Finis xxs. Redditus vis. iid. ob. [Ten other dimidii virgatarii have similar holdings.] Robertus Hagges tenet unum Cotagium cum Curtillagio in Kyng- ton continenti dimidiam acram. Item tenet Toftum i placee terre in orientali parte Cotagii continen- tis unam perticatam. Item tenet ili acras terre arabilis in iibe* Campis unde in Campo orientali Super Manneshulle unam acram dimidiam Et in Campo occidentali in Ruydone unam acram dimidiam. Finis iiis. iiiid. Redditus iis. vid. Johannes Purymane, Paynter, tenet unum Cotagium cum Curtillagio in Langley continenti dimidiam acram et i hammam prati vocatam Mullehamme continentem i perticatam dimidiam cum ii Meerys annexatis in boriali Campo continentibus iii perticatas. Item tenet iii acras dimidiam terre arrabilis in eodem Campo in v particulis in furlongo vocato Clanfeld. 430 APPENDIX I Item tenet annuatim ii plaustra in bosco domini apud Haywode in emendatione tenure predicte. ... Finis——. Redditus vs. B. EXTRACTS FROM A SURVEY OF HANDBOROUGH, OXFORDSHIRE Land Revenue, Misc. Bk. 224, ff. 96-145. 4 James I Comitatus Oxoniae. Manerium de Hanberough. Supervisus Manerii predicti factus die Julii Anno regni domini nostri Jacobi Dei gratia Anglie Scotie Francie et Hibernie Regis fidei defensoris, etc., viz., Anglie Francie et Hibernie Quarto et Scotie xxxix, per Henricum Lee prenobilis garterii militem, Franciscum Stonerd, militem, Johanem Herche, Arm., et Johanem Herch, Jun., gen., vir- tute Comissionis dicti domini Regis extra Scacarrium suum eis et aliis directe, super sacrum Tenentium ibidem, viz., Richardi slutter, Jun., Johanis Wellr, Johanis Ford, Richardi Deane, Henrici Horne, Thome Lymborough, Richardi Rowland, Galfridi Hischman, Johanis Salter, Stephani Rugs, Rogeri Brooks, Willielmi Wrighte, Richardi Fletcher, Qui dicunt super sacrum suum quod LiperRI TENENTES! Rogerus Brooke Tenet libere per copiam datam quinto die De- cembris Anno Regine Elizabethe xl™° certas terras iacentes iuxta sil- vam vocatam Pindsley Coppice, viz., Terram arabilem vocatam le Sarte iacentem iuxta Pinsley Coppice per estimationem iiii acras Boscum in Pinsley Coppice vocatum a hedge acre per estimationem i acram Habendas prefato Rogero et heredibus suis nuper procreaturis se- cundum consuetudinem Manerii predicti. Redditus per annum vd. ob., relievum x d. Henricus Salter Tenet libere per copiam datam xxiiii*® die Marcii Anno Regine Elizabethe xliiii*® unam parcellam prati vocatam Ferretts meade, unam parcellam pasture vocatam Fulwell, et unam parcellam terre vocatam le Sartes nuper Willielmi Salter, patris sui, viz., parcellam prati in prato vocato Ferretts Meade per estimationem iii acras ii rodas 1 In the manuscript this rubric is in the margin. APPENDIX I 431 parcellam pasture vocatam Fulwell iuxta Pindsley Coppice per es- timationem iii rodas parcellam terre arabilis vocatam le Sartes in Myllfeld per estima- tionem i acram li rodas Habendas sibi et heredibus suis nuper procreaturis secundum con- suetudinem Manerii. Redditus per annum xiid. q., relievum xiid. q. Jacobus Woldridge Tenet libere per Copiam datam xx° die Julii Anno Regine Elizabethe xliii? unum mesuagium sive Tenementum et unam clausuram eidem adiacentem in Handboroughe cum pertinen- tibus ex sursumredditu Galfridi London, viz., Domum mansionalem iiii spaciorum, horreum iii spaciorum, unum stabulum cum aliis le outhouse iii spaciorum, Coquinam ii spacio- rum, gardinum, pomarium, et Curtilagium, cum parva Clausa adiacenti, per estimationem i acram li rodas Habendas sibi et heredibus suis secundum consuetudinem manerii. Redditus per annum xvi d., relievum iis. viii d. Thomas Martyn Tenet libere per Copiam datam xiiiit die Martii Anno Regis Regine Elizabethe xxxix° unum Cotagium et unam peciam terre vocatam a garden plott cum pertinentibus vocatas Smartes ac dimidiam acram terre arrabilis iacentem in Mylfeild ex sursumredditu Ricardi Richardson, viz., Domum mansionalem v spaciorum, horreum, et stabulum, et gardi- num, per estimationem i rodam Terram arrabilem in Myllfeilde per estimationem li rodas Habendas sibi et heredibus imperpetuum secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per Annum iiid. Relievum vid. Georgius Cole, gen., Tenet per Copiam datam —— die —-Anno —— unum Cotagium vocatum Pynes, viz., Domum mansionalem iiii spaciorum, gardinum, pomarium, et Curtilagium, per estimationem iii rodas Clausam pasture vocatam Irenmongers per estimationem ii acras Duo Cotagia vocata Clarkes v spaciorum, gardinum, pomarium, et Curtilagium, per estimationem ii rodas Clausam pasture adiacentem ii rodas Alium Cotagium ii spaciorum, gardinum, et Curtilagium, per estima- tionem ii rodas Clausam terre arabilis vocatam Ridinges per estimationem vii acras Habendas sibi et heredibus secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per annum xxiiid. ob. q. Relievum duplex redditus. 432 APPENDIX I Heredes Martini Culpeper, Militis, Clamant tenere libere per Co- piam non ostensam certas terras in Hanborough, viz., Domum mansionalem viii spaciorum, gardinum, cum clausa adia- centi, per estimationem ii acras Terram arrabilem in le Hide vocatam Hutchins Hilles per estima- tionem viii acras Clausam arrabilem vocatam Old Close per estimationem _ vi acras Domum mansionalem vocatam Trumplettes ii spaciorum, gardinum, per estimationem i rodam Habendas sibi et heredibus suis secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per Annum lis. vd. ob. Relievum duplex redditus. [There are several other similar freeholds.] CUSTUMARII Heredes Martini Culpeper, Militis, Tenent per copiam — datam — die — Anno regis — unum mesuagium et unam virgatam terre cum pertinentibus in Hanborowe, viz., Domum mansionalem ii spaciorum, unum horreum ii spaciorum, gardinum, et Curtilagium, cum clausa adiacenti, per estima- tionem illi acras Clausam terre arabilis vocatam Keenes per estimationem __ vi acras Terram arabilem in Southfeild per estimationem x acras Terram arabilem in Mylfeild per estimationem x acras Terram arabilem in Myddlefeild per estimationem vill acras Pratum in Southmeade per estimationem i acram Pratum in Nyemeade per estimationem i acram Pratum in Cowmore per estimationem i acram Pratum in Fenlake per estimationem ii rodas Communiam pasture ut supra Habendas sibi et heredibus secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per Annum vs. _ Finis duplex redditus. Harrietum —. Annualis valor dimittendus —. Ricardus Weller Tenet per Copiam ut dicitur sed non ostensam unum mesuagium et dimidiam virgatam terre cum pertinentibus, viz., Domum mansionalem iii spaciorum, unum horreum iii spaciorum, Coquinam ii spaciorum, gardinum, pomarium, et Curtilagium, per estimationem ii rodas Terram arabilem in le Myddle feild per estimationem iacram i rodam APPENDIX I 433 Terram arrabilem in le South feild per estimationem ili acras li rodas Terram arabilem in le Myllfield per estimationem i rodam Pratum in Cotland Meade per estimationem ii rodas Pratum in Cheny Weare Meade per estimationem ii rodas Communiam pasture ut supra Habendas sibi et heredibus secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per Annum iiiis. vid. Finis duplex redditus. Harrietum —., Annualis valor dimittendus —. Galfridus Hitchman Tenet per Copiam datam xvii die Novembris Anno Regni Regine Elizabethe xxii? unum messuagium et dimidiam unius virgate Terre cum pertinentibus nuper Elizabethe Hitchman, viz., Domum mansionalem vi spaciorum, horreum iiii spaciorum, i stabulum i spacii, pomarium, gardinum, et le backside, per estima- tionem i rodam Clausam pasture domui adiacentem per estimationem i acram Terram arrabilem in Myddle Feild per estimationem v acras dimidiam Terram arrabilem in South Feild per estimationem Vv acras Terram arrabilem in Myll Feild per estimationem Vv acras Pratum vocatum Stone Acre per estimationem i acram Pratum in Cowmore per estimationem i acram Communiam pasture pro xxx ovibus Habendas sibi et heredibus suis secundum Consuetudinem man- erii per Redditum per annum iis. vid. Finis vs. Herrietum una vacca. Servicium, etc. Annualis valor dimittendus —. Johannes Weller Tenet per Copiam datam xii° die Septembris Anno Regni Regis nunc Jacobi Anglie Francie et Hibernie Regis iii° et Scotie xxxix° unum mesuagium sive Tenementum et duas Clausuras et dimidiam virgatam terre cum pertinentibus ex sursumredditu Mar- tini Varney, viz., Domum mansionalem ii spaciorum, unum horreum ii spaciorum, gardinum, et Curtilagium, per estimationem i rodam Clausam pasture vocatam Peakes per estimationem iacram li rodas Clausam terre arrabilis vocatam Peakes per estimationem iacram ii rodas 434 APPENDIX I Terram arrabilem in le Myddlefeild per estimationem ili acras ii rodas Terram arrabilem in le Myllefeild per estimationem iii acras Terram arrabilem in le Southfeild per estimationem iii acras ili rodas Pratum in Southmead per estimationem ii rodas Pratum in Nyemead per estimationem ii rodas Pratum in Cowmore per estimationem ii rodas Pratum in Fenlake per estimationem i swathe Communiam pasture ut supra Habendas sibi et heredibus secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Red- ditus per Annum iis. vid. Finis duplex redditus. Harrietum opti- Johannes Bates, Clericus, Tenet per Copiam datam xxiiii’® die Marcii Anno Regni Regine Elizabethe xxxix® unum mesuagium sive Tenemen- tum et dimidiam virgatam terre cum omnibus pertinentibus ex sursum- redditu Ricardi Sampson filii et heredis Roberti Sampson, viz., Domum mansionalem iii spaciorum, unum horreum ii spaciorum, unum stabulum i spacii, gardinum, pomarium, et Curtilagium, per estimationem ii rodas Clausam pasture domui adiacentem ii acras Terram arrabilem in Myddlefeild per estimationem ili acras ii rodas Terram arrabilem in Southfeild per estimationem iii acras ii rodas Terram arrabilem in Mylifeild per estimationem iii acras Pratum in Southmeade per estimationem ii rodas Pratum in Nyemeade per estimationem ii rodas Pratum in Cowmore per estimationem ii rodas Pratum in Fenlake per estimationem i rodam Communiam pasture pro omnibus Averiis in omnibus Communiis, etc. Habendas prefato Johanni Bates et heredibus suis imperpetuum secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per Annum iis. vid. Finis duplex redditus. Herrietum optimum averium. Annualis Ricardus Stutter, junior, Tenet per Copiam datam xvi* die Martii Anno Regni Regine Elizabethe xliii? unum Tenementum et unam vir- APPENDIX I 435 gatam terre cum omnibus pratis, pascuis, et pasturis eidem pertinenti- bus cum pertinentibus et alium Tenementum cum dimidia virgata terre cum pratis, pascuis, et pasturis eidem pertinentibus, viz., Domum mansionalem xii spaciorum, unum horreum iii spaciorum, unum stabulum iii spaciorum, unum le Shepehouse iii spaciorum, gardinum, ii pomaria, et Curtilagium, per estimationem i acram Clausam pasture vocatam le Corne Close cum alia clausa adiacenti vocata Heathfield per estimationem X acras Terram arabilem in le Southfeild per estimationem x acras Terram arabilem in le Myddlefeild per estimationem x acras Terram arabilem in le Myllfeild per estimationem x acras Pratum in Southmeade et Nyemeade per estimationem ill acras Pratum in Cowmore per estimationem i acram ii rodas Pratum in Fenlake per estimationem ili rodas Alium domum mansionalem iii spaciorum cum gardino et pemario in occupatione Johannis Holloway per estimationem ii rodas Communiam pasture pro omnibus averiis in Einsham heath et - Kinges Heath Habendas prefato Ricardo et heredibus suis imperpetuum secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per Annum viis. vid. Harrietum optimum averium. Finis duplex redditus. Annualis valor dimitten- dus x li. Rogerus Brooke Tenet per Copiam datam quinto die Decembris Anno Regni Regine Elizabethe xl™° unum Mesuagium, unum horreum, unum pomarium, unum clausum, unum gardinum, cum omnibus edifi- ciis eidem mesuagio pertinentibus, et unam virgatam terre in Handbor- oughe ex sursumredditu Willelmi Watson et Isabelle uoris exius, viz., Domum mansionalem vi spaciorum, ii horrea vi spaciorum, coqui- nam iii spaciorum, stabulum i spacii, unum shepehouse iiii spacio- rum, gardinum, pomarium, et Curtilagium, cum parva Clausa adiacenti, per estimationem ili acras Duas clausas pasture vocatas Heath Closes per estimationem, lili acras Terram arrabilem in Southfeilde per estimationem xiacras irodam Terram brueriam ibidem per estimationem ii rodas Terram arrabilem in Myllfeild per estimationem vi acras i rodam Terram leazuram in Myllfeild per estimationem i acram Terram arrabilem in Myddlefield per estimationem vi acras Pratum in Southmeade per estimationem i acram 436 APPENDIX I Pratum in Nyemeade per estimationem i acram Pratum in Cowmore per estimationem i acram Pratum in Fenlake per estimationem ii rodas Communiam pasture in omnibus Campis, etc. Habendas prefato Rogero Brooke et heredibus suis imperpetuum secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per annum vs. _ Finis xs. Harrietum optimum averium. Annualis valor dimittendus vi li. [Several other customary tenants hold similar virgates or half- virgates.] TERRA DoMINICALIS PER COPIAM Rogerus Legg Tenet per copiam datam —— die —- Anno Regis — unam acram et unam rodam terre arabilis et unum rodam prati que sunt terre dominicales et vulgariter appellantur Buryland, viz., Terram arabilem in Myddlefeild per estimationem dimidiam acram Terram arabilem in Southfeild per estimationem i rodam Pratum in bysouth et meadhey per estimationem dimidiam acram Terram de Leyland in le Bushyehide per estimationem i rodam Terram de ley iuxta domum predictum per estimationem irodam Habendas sibi et heredibus secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per annum iis. iiid. Finis duplex redditus. Annualis valor dimittendus —. Heredes Stephani Culpeper Tenent per copiam datam die —— anno Regis —— quatuor acras terre arrabilis et unam acram prati que sunt terre dominicales et vulgariter appellantur Buryland, viz., Terram arabilem in Southfeild per estimationem i acram Terram arabilem in le hide per estimationem i acram Pratum in Bysouth per estimationem i acram Pratum in Meadhay per estimationem i acram Terram leazuram in bushiehide per estimationem i acram Habendas sibi et heredibus secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per Annum ixs. Que quidem premisse similiter clamantur per heredes Martini Culpeper. Ricardus Lous Tenet per Copiam datam xiii® die Marcii Anno Regni Regine Elizabethe xxiii? octodecim acres terre arrabilis et tres acras prati que sunt terre dominicales et vulgariter appellantur Bury- land, viz., Terram arrabilem in le hide per estimationem xiii acras Terram arrabilem in le Myddlefeild per estimationem i acram APPENDIX I 437 Terram arrabilem in le Southfeild per estimationem ilii acras Pratum in Meadhay per estimationem iil acras Pratum in Bysouth per estimationem iii acras Habendas sibi et heredibus secundum consuetudinem Manerii. Redditus per annum xxviis. Finis duplex redditus. Annualis valor dimittendus xls. [There are several other lessees of demesne lands. At the end of the survey are the signatures of the jurors.] C. SUMMARIES OF TUDOR AND JACOBEAN SURVEYS WHICH ILLUSTRATE NORMAL TWO- AND THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Areas are in acres unless otherwise specified. Messuages are indicated by m., virgates by virg., cottages by cott., tenements by tent., and gardens by gard. BRAILES, UPPER AND NETHER, WARWICKSHIRE Land Rev., M. B. 185, ff. 181-229. 5 Jas. I Arable in the Common Meadow Open Common ——_2+-——>». Fields North South ————_. __ field field Enclosed North South “Leiset “Leiset Upper Nether Custumarii (Upper Brailes) Unspec. Pasture field field hades” hades” Md. Md. Thos. Baldwyn,! m., 2 virg. 1% ee 12 12 13 13 3 I Margar. Napton, m., 1 virg. #¢ ie? 5 4 rs I ri 3 Marion Warde, m., 2 virg.. 1 ds 14 14 1} I 12 13 Roger Marshall, m., 1 virg.. 1 ae 4 4 I I; ; 3 Dorothea Nicolls, m., 2 virg. 1 ri se) 9 5 I} $ Iz “ Lotted ground ” in “le Gallow Custumarii (Nether Brailes) heath” hill Thos. Bishopp, m., 2 virg... I seit 9 3 2 2 2 Ed. Walker, m., 1 virg.... 1 I 6 7 Ae ed I I Serack Ockley, m., 1 virg.. 1 8 7 3 2 I I Wm. Gardner, m., 2 virg... I I 12 12 4 4 2 2 Ric. Rymell, m., 1 virg..... 14 7 6 35 23 I I There are many similar holdings. 1 Baldwyn has “ communia pasture in quibusdam pasturis iacentibus in upper braileS vocatis . . . {nine pastures named] pro viii averiis, v equis, iiii** ovibus.’’ Other tenants fare proportionally. 438 APPENDIX I SHIPTON-UNDER—WYCHWOOD, OXFORDSHIRE Land Rev., M. B. 180, ff. 96-100. 6 Edw. VI Arable in the Open Common Fiel Common Custumarii Enclosed East field West field Meadow Thos. Bradshaw, m., 2 virg........ 6 44 35 44 Eliz. Gybbons, m., 3 virg.......... 9} 40 40 II Thos. Altofte, m., [?] virg.......... 3 66 60 at John Whytinge, m., 2 virg......... 3 46 40 33 John Harris, m., 2 virg............ ? 42 39 4 Michael Hucks, m., 3 nocate ...... 2 20 19 1} Thos: Hucks, m.;-24-Vitgioe ws ¥ 74 34 . 4} Wm. Castleman and Jo. Gardyner, nays. e202 II 7 10 6 6 7 Ric. and Thos. Castleman, m. .. 16} z II 8 2} There are fifteen other copyholds. Each copyholder has ‘‘ communem in the fylds for his cattell and shepe.”’ ASHTON KEYNES, WILTSHIRE Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 422, ff. 48-79. 1 Jas. I Arable in the Open Common Fields SS SSS Enclosed East North West- Common Custumarii Arab. Past. field field ham Meadow Ant. Ferres; m., i virg:, .::. 18 12 II 16 ; Johanna Archard, m., 1 virg. 1 12 aj 10 9 $ Yo. Cove mer Vite... < 5.056 3 17 8 8 7 if M. Chapperlyn, m., 1 virg.. 44 5 15 rp 8 25 Wm. Clyfford, m., 1 virg.... 3 6 8 10} 8 133 Jo. Rowley, m., ¢ virg...... 3 3 oe 5 3 Ric. Sawyer, m., 3 virg..... 4 2} 6 32 43 3 Joanna Syninge, m., 4 virg.. 1 6 6 be) I Geo. Androwes, m., } virg. . 2 92 63 7 13 Benetta George, m., } virg... I 2 73 3% 4t I Ellena Hardinge, m., } virg.. 3 7 6 7 10 12 Jo. Hardinge, m., 3 virg.... 2 6 A 7 be) 2 There are several other copyholders and several freeholders. The copyholders have unstinted common of pasture in the common fields, the common meadows, and the forest of Braydon. APPENDIX I 443 ANSTY, HAMPSHIRE Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 56, ff. 67-76. 10 Hen. VI Arable in the Open Common Fields Tenants Nethentrcte’!/Spith Geld... Middl Geld” West Gad Edwatte Rithe, ro acres past- (CURE: (CYP TERE 2 oO PAIR ti aan 5 3 (4) 43 (7) 3x (6) JowmAms ty-pm'rlacyeccitras se aetne a 3 (2) I (2) 4 (1) hos. Cochman, m............ us I (3) 1 (2) 2 (3) Robt. Kyng, 2 m., toft, croft. .. ri 2% (3) 12 (4) 4 (8) PhilGredares Ms...415..55 5 I Es + I oI oI a s 2 oI F 1 Io‘'tt* zur ‘aaoissnyy “Yyof = - os o- ee oz oe oz ee ee oz tp ee I eee eeeee ‘uz ‘ORG “UA, a £1 o. +. o. gi gI z oe .- gI zs z ‘pies tee ou ‘suvuioa x ‘WM a c +. .. +: gI oo QI ¢ oe gI S + Pa a ‘wz ‘UAMTIG ‘juny ee oe ee ee ¢ oe ¢ oe oe ¢ ee oe g cee nee ee w ‘UAMTIG “ITPA I z ay Br £1 z d1OOJT puv ZI te oz 8 SY. PIBAs Sees Sas w ‘yMog “WA fz +. +. +. TI oa g 8 oe QI £¢ .. "pape ssc Grant of three rods, one in each of the above named fields.® Extent. The demesne arable comprises “in campo qui vocatur aggrave octoviginti acre in campo qui vocatur Westfeld septemviginti et de- cem acre in campo qui vocatur Estfeld sexviginti et quat- uordecim acre et dimidia.” 7 Terrier of the lands of St. Michael’s College, Cambridge: in the North field 17% acres in 24 parcels in ‘“‘ Chawdwel”’ field 11 acres in 16 parcels in a field called Down 18 acres in 34 parcels.® Map and accompanying schedule showing that demesne and tenants’ holdings were divided pretty evenly among three fields. The demesne arable of the manor of “‘Avenelles ”’ comprised 118} acres in the East field, 106 acres in the Middle field, 12 acres in the Sandes field, and 88 acres in the South field.° Terrier of the lands of St. Michael’s College, Cambridge: in the North field 112 acres in 22 parcels in the West field 113 acres in 27 parcels in the “‘ hy ”’ field 9 acres in 18 parcels.! {Rich. IT.] 5 Ped. Fin., 23-5-27. 4 John. (Copy in cartl. 6 Ibid., 23-12-39. 12 Hen. III. 7 Cott. MS., Claud. C XI, f. 34. 1278. 3 Merton Col. MSS., Charter 1546. 42 Hen. III. 8 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 7. [XVI cen.] « Harl. MS. 3697, f. 155. 1387.] [Copy in cartl. of 9 Merton Col. MSS., map and schedule. 1601. 10 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 7. [XVI cen.] APPENDIX II 459 Township Description Haslingfield Terrier of the lands of St. Michael’s College, Cambridge: in the field called “‘ Dawland ” 83 acres in 25 parcels in the field called ‘‘ Rowlay ” 11% acres in 25 parcels in the field called ‘‘ Downefelde”’ 9% acres in 19 par- cels.1 Hinxton Terrier of the lands of St. Michael’s College, Cambridge: in the West field 83 acres in “ly Medylfeld ” 9% acres in “ ly Chyrchfeld ” 83 acres.? Litlington Survey. The demesne arable comprises 41 acres in Westwoode field, 31 in Grenedon field, and 35 in Hyndon field, together with 125 acres not in the fields.* Littleport Extent. The demesne arable comprises “in campo qui vocatur Westfeld quinque viginti acre et quinque rode terre in Suthfeld quinque viginti acre in Estfeld quater viginti acre et tres rode.” 4 “ Lyndon ” Extent. The demesne arable comprises “in campo qui vocatur Northay ducente et quad- raginta acre in campo qui vocatur Middelfeld ducente et quater- viginti acre in campo qui vocatur Sephey ducente et quater- viginti et novem acre in campo qui vocatur Snota viginti quinque acre.” ® Shudy Camps Grant of half a woodland and “ tres acras terre arabilis quarum tres rode et dimidia iacent in Cherchefeld ... et in alio campo una acra ... et in tertio campo una acra et dimidia roda.”’ © Swaffham Prior Terrier of two holdings with acres allotted to “‘ Dyche- felde,”’ ‘‘ Middelfeld,”’ and ‘‘ Begdalfyld,”’ as fol- lows: 33 in 12 parcels, 23 in 7 parcels, rj in 7 parcels tzin 5 parcels, 1} in 3 parcels, 1% in 3 parcels.’ Thriplow Extent. The demesne arable comprises “in campo qui vocatur Kirkefeld quinque viginti et octo acre et una roda in Hethfeld septem viginti et tresdecim acre in Westfeld quinque viginti et undecim acre.” 8 Wilburton Extent. The demesne arable comprises “in campo vocato Estfeld quater viginti et sexdecim acre 1 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 7. [XVI cen.] 5 Tbid., f. 53. 1278. 2 Tbid. 6 Ped. Fin., 23-9-22. 3 Hen. III. 3 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 6/18. [29] Hen. VIII. 7 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 22/43. 1566. 4 Cott. MS., Claud. C XI, f. 38. 1278. 8 Cott. MS., Claud. C XI, f. 132. 1278. 460 APPENDIX II Township Description Wilburton (continued) in campo vocato Suthfeld sexaginta et duodecim acre in campo vocato Nortfeld centum et octo acre.”’! Willingham Extent. The arable demesne comprises Willingham Fen Ditton Gransden Madingley Whaddon Glapwell Osmaston “in campo qui vocatur Westfeld quater viginti et due acre in campo qui vocatur Middelfeld quater viginti et un- decim acre in campo qui vocatur Belasis quinque viginti et sex acre.”’? Terriers of small holdings which have parcels in Cad- win field, Belsaies field, and West field. The terrier of a half-yardland in an eighteenth-century hand allots acres equally to these three fields.’ Extent of the demesne arable, “‘ de quibus tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam. Et de residuo quelibet acra valet per annum vid. quum semi- nantur et quum non seminantur tunc nihil valent quia tunc iacent in communi per totum annum.” 4 Extent of the demesne arable, “unde due partes earun- dem seminantur per annum ... et tertia pars ear- undem nichil valet quia iacet in communi ad warec- tam.” ® Extent of the demesne arable, ‘quarum due partes pos- sunt seminari quolibet anno et ... tertia pars nic- hil valet quia iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi.® Extent. ‘‘ Sunt ibidem iiii** acre terre arabilis et inde seminabantur hoc anno Ix acre terre et residuum jacet in communi.” 7 DERBYSHIRE. THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Grant inter alia of “ duas culturas ... in campo qui vocatur Northfeld et unam culturam in campo qui vocatur Suthfeld ... et duas acras et dimidiam in Estfeld. ...”’ 8 Specification of the common of pasture which the abbot and convent of Derley may have “* quum campi de Osmudestone et de lutchurch iacent in warecto versus Derewente ... in anno subsequente ... quum campi de Osmunde- stone et de Lutchurch iacent in warecto versus Normanton et Codintone 1 Cott. MS., Claud C XI, f. 49. 1278. 6 Tbid., F. 46 (33). 10 Edw. III. 2 Tbid., f. x11. 3 Add. MS. 14049. 7 Ibid., F. 64 (20). 15 Edw. III. [XV cen.] 8 Cott. MS., Titus C XII, f. 120. [Late 4 Add. MS. 616s, f. 1346. 30 Edw. III. XIII cen. copy.] 5 C. Inq. p. Mort, Edw. III, F. 43 (10). 9 Edw. III. Township Osmaston (continued) Shirebroke Afflington Blandford Crichel Eastington Gufsage Tisington Nyland Piddle 1 Cott. MS., Titus C XII,, f.62b. [1247-1353.] 2 Exch. K. R., M. B. 23, f. 79. 3 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 7/9. 4 Cott. MS., Otho B XIV, f. 44. [XV cen. copy.] 5 E. A. and G.S. Fry, Dorset Fines (1896), p. 10. 4 John. APPENDIX II 461 Description et in tertio anno... quum campus de Lutchurch iacet in warecto versus Derb’.”’! Transfer of a toft and a bovate “ prout iacet in tribus stadiis camporum ... cuius bovate unum stadium abuttat super parcum de pleseley in campo australi et alterum stadium abuttat super akkyr hedge in uno fine et villam predictam in campo qui vocatur Tonnefeld et tertium stadium iacet in campo occidentali ... et ista bovata extendit se ab austro in boriam ubique exceptis duobus buttis quiiacent in campo boriali.’’? Dorset. Two-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Extent (defaced). The demesne arable comprises in campo horientali 66 acres and in campo occidentali [82 acres].$ Grant of “ vii acre terre in uno campo et vii in alio campo,” and of “‘ quatuor acre terre in uno campo Grant of 8 acres, scil., 4 acres in one field in 4 parcels and 4 acres in the other field in 3 parcels. > Terrier of the lands of Christchurch Priory, Hants. In the North field are 1053 acres in 11 “ culture ” in the South field, 108 acres in 21 “ culture.” § Grant of a virgate from the demesne, scil., “ decem acras in uno campo et decem acras in alio campo et unam acram prati... et unam acram ad facien- dum curtillagium.”’7 Grant of a messuage and “ tres acre in uno campo et duas acras in alio, in campo orientali ... [5 parcels] in campo occidentali .. . [2 parcels].’’ 8 Survey showing six holdings, the acres of which are almost equally divided between North field and South field, i.e., 12 vs. 12, 9 vs. 8, 10 US. 7, OF US. 73; 22 US. 20, 14 vs. 14.9 Grant of one-third of three hides, viz., “‘a third part of the West field towards the south, with the yards and crofts. which are in the same field towards the 6 Cott. MS., Tib. D VI, f. 235. 34 Edw. 2 Hen. V. (I. (Edw. III.] 7 Ibid., f. r19. [XV cen. copy.] 8 Tbid., f. 163. [XV cen. copy.] 9 Land Rev., M. B. 214, ff. 91-92. 6 Jas. I. 462 Township Piddle (continued) Piddletown Tatton Westhill Wimborne, Upper Abbotsbury Graston Hilton Portisham Tolpiddle Witherston “Wotton ” Affpiddle Bloxworth Cerne Hawkchurch Mintern Symondsbury Winfrith “ Wydesford ” Bolam Gainford Langton 1 Fry, Dorset Fines, p. 17. 13 John. 2 Cott. MS., Tib. D VI, f. 140. [XV cen. copy.] 3 Tbid., f. 169. [XV cen. copy.] 4 Ibid., f. 122. [XV cen. copy.] 5 Ibid., f. 116. [XV cen. copy.] APPENDIX II Description south of the little garden and a third part of the East field towards the south. ...” ! Grant of “ centum acras colendas, viz., quadraginta in uno campo et quadraginta in alio campo de dominico meo.”’ ? Grant of two and one-half virgates, viz., in campo occidentali 30 acres in 21 parcels in campo orientali 32 acres similarly subdivided.’ Grant of four acres, scil., “* duas acras terre in uno campo et duas acras in alio campo.” 4 Grant of a messuage and a half-virgate, scil., ** quinque acras in uno campo et v in alio.’’5 Dorset. THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Extents of the demesne lands of these manors. Rela- tive to the demesne in each instance occurs the phrase, “‘ due partes... possunt seminari per an- num... et tertia pars iacet ad warectam et in communi et ideo nullius valoris.’’ § Extents of the lands of Cerne abbey. Relative to the demesne in each instance occurs the phrase quoted above.’ DURHAM. THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Terrier of seven holdings. Each has an almost equal amount of arable and meadow in East field, West field, and North field.’ Terrier of many holdings. Each is predominantly arable and is evenly divided between West field, Middle field, and East field.° Terrier of several holdings. Each is largely arable and is divided evenly between West field, South field, and North field. 6 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 7/10. 17 Edw. III. 7 Add. MS. 616s, ff. 33-35. 30 Edw. III. 8 Land Rev., M. B. 192, f. 31 sg. 5 Jas. I. 9 Land Rev., M. B. 193, ff. 15-19. 5 Jas. I. 10 Tbid., ff. 22-24. 5 Jas. L. Township Long Newton Raby Shotton Summerhouse Wackerfield Wellington Whitworth Whorlton Wick, West Wolviston Ablington Alderton 1 Land Rev., M. B. 193, f. 29 sq. 2 Land Rev., M. B. 192, £. § sq. 6 Jas. I. 5 Jas. I. 3 Ibid., f. 29b. 4 Tbid., f. 22b. 5 Ibid., ff. 185, 19. 6 Ibid., f. 50b. 7 Tbid., f. 64. GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 5 Jas. I. 5 Jas. I. 5 Jas. I. APPENDIX II 463 Description Terrier of many holdings. Each is largely arable and is divided evenly between North field, South field, and West field. Terrier of several leaseholds. Each is largely arable and is evenly divided among three fields, two of which are subdivided, viz., West field and Crundle- dyke field, Chapell field, Crabtree field and High field.” Terrier of seven holdings. Each is largely arable and the acres are almost exactly divided between West field, East field, and Middle field.’ Terrier of a few large holdings. The arable of each is divided between Low field, South field, and North field.* Terrier of several holdings. They are largely arable and their arable is evenly divided between West field, High field, and East field. Terrier of several ‘holdings. A few retain some open- field arable divided between Hither Crownel field, Far Crownel field, and le Langlands.® Terrier of several holdings. They still have consider- able arable, which is pretty evenly divided between West field, Broome field, and Farnehill field.” Terrier of several holdings, rather more than one-half of each being equally divided between West field, Bennow field, and Lowe field.8 A long terrier. Arable predominates in each holding, and is often evenly divided between Middle field, Low field, and High field.® Transfer of 6 acres of arable in the fields, viz., in campo boriali 5 roods and 2 selions in 2 places in campo australi g selions in 2 places in campo occidentali 7 selions in 1 place.’ TWO-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Ashort survey. In three instances the arable is divided evenly between East field and West field, e.g., 210 acres vs. 200 acres.1! Transfer of 4 acres of arable im uno campo in 5 parcels and of 4 in alio in 4 parcels.” 5 Jas I. 5 Jas. I. 8 Land Rev., M.B. 193, f. 88. Mi bid’, f50s 5 ase dk. 10 Feodarium Prioratus Dunelmensis (Surtees Soc., E871). p: 32;M. 2, 1325. 1 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 2/46. 1 Edw. VI. 12 Cartl. St. Pet. Glouc. (Rolls Series), i. 167. XIII cen.] 5 Jas. I. [Mid. 464 Township “ Eston ” [Cold Ashton] Aston Sub-edge Badminton Bagendon Bisley Cherrington Cowley Dorsington Duntisborne Abbots East Leach and Fyfield Hampen 1 Reg. Monast. de Winchelcumba (ed. D. Royce), i. 233. [XIII cen.] 2 Eynsham Cartl. (ed. H. E. Salter), i. 137. [1180-84.] 3 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 61, f. 5. 4 Glouc. Ing. p. Mort., British Record Soc., 2 Chas. I. § Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 394, ff. 78-126. 6 Jas. I. Index Library, ix. 31. APPENDIX II Description Grant of “ servitium ... de octo acris terre in uno campo et de octo acris in alio campo.” ! The abbot has the chapel and “ in uno campo xv acras terre et in alio xiiii.”’ ? Transfer of 14} acres of arable, viz., 8 acres in campo orientali and 6} acres in campo occidentali. The numerous parcels are described, and other holdings are similarly divided between the fields.* Transfer of a messuage, a close, and 2 acres of arable “in utroque campo.” 4 Long survey. Most customary holdings are evenly divided between Battlescombe field and Stank- combe (sometimes Stankham) field.® Rental. “ Una virgata terre iacet in campis, viz., “in campo vocato le Northfeld xxx acre terre ara- bilis et in eampo vocato le Southfeld xxx acre terre ara- bilis.”’ ® Transfer of a messuage and 14 acres of arable, viz., ““ septem acras terre in campo meridionali et alias septem acras in campo occidentali.”’7 Transfer of a messuage, a croft, and a virgate of land, the latter comprising 13 acres in campo orientali in 15 parcels and 13 acres im campo occidentali in 13 parcels.8 Extent. ‘Robert Abovetun tenet unam virgatam terre continentem quadraginta quatuor acras in utroque campo.’ Transfer of a messuage in East Leach, and of “‘ viii acras in uno campo de Fishyde [Fyfield], scil., in campo versus North [in 16 parcels] et totidem in allio, scil., in campo versus Suth [in 17 parcels] ”’. Transfer of 13 acres of arable in East Leach, divided almost evenly between South field and North field.” Transfer of 6 acres of arable in 6 parcels and in alio campo of 6 acres in 2 parcels. The same land is again described as “‘ sex acras in uno campo et sex acras in alio campo.” #! 6 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 7/70, f. 13. [Hen. VIIL.] 7 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 61, £. 23. [1249-62.] 8 Harl. MS. 4028. 1 Edw. II. 9 Carll. St. Pet. Glouc. (Rolls Series) iii. 194. [1266-67.] 10 [bid., i. 271, 274. [1212-43, 1263-84.] 1 Reg. Monast. de Winchelcumba (ed. Royce), i. 151-54. [c. 1200.] [1235-49.] Township Hawkesbury Hitcot Mikleton Norton Sevenhampton Sherborne Shipton Stratton Tresham Whittington Yanworth Fairford Minchin Hampton 1 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 61, f. 7. [1234-40.] APPENDIX Il. 465 Description Transfer of a messuage and a croft, ‘‘ cum duabus acris in uno campo et duabus in alio.”’ ! The abbot has ‘‘ in utroque campo duas acras.”’ 2 “Et habet vicarius in utroque campo unam hidam.” 3 Extent of the demesne, which comprises “ ccvii acre terre arabilis in utroque campo.” 4 Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises 4193 acres in campo Haustrali “ in diversis culturis ”’ and 390 acres in campo orientali.® A series of charters showing holdings equally divided between North field and South field (cf. especially p. 268).® Grant of 30 acres from a virgate, scil., in campo qui vocatur Estfeld 15 acres in 12 parcels in alio campo qui vocatur Westfeld 15 acres in 11 parcels.’ Extent. The demesne arable lies in two fields, viz., “in campo orientali et boriali in diversis culturis ...xlviii acre.... Et in eisdem campis l acre ... et in eisdem campis | acre. ... ’’8 Grant of 23 acres, viz., in campo australi 13 acres in 2 parcels in campo boriali 1 acre in 1 parcel.? Grant of common of pasture “ super totam terram .. [except] in uno campo culturam de Cumbe et in alio campo culturam de Wicham.” ” Transfer of 5 acres 7m uno campo in 2 parcels and 5 acres in alio campo in 5 parcels. Transfer of 4 acres in campo del Suth and 4 acres in campo de North.“ Extent. ‘ Sunt in dominico cccciiii** acre terre arabilis quarum ccxl acre seminate fuerunt ante [20 July]. ... Et ccx] non possunt extendi quia iacent ad warectam et in communi.” 2 GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 'THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Extent of the demesne arable, ‘‘ de quibus due partes possunt seminari per annum... et tertia pars nihil valet quia iacet warecta et in communi.” ¥ 8 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 16/66. 22 Edw. I. 2 Eynsham Cartl. (ed. Salter), i.137. [1180—84.] 9 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 61, f.75. [1249-62.] 3 Thid. 10 Ped. Fin., 73-3-62. 10 John. 4 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 2 (15). 1 Edw. ll Reg. Monast. de Winchelcumba (ed. Royce), Ii. li. 320, 371. [XIII cen.] 5 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 16/66. 22 Edw. I. 12 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 51 (2). 1 6 Reg. Monast. de Winckelcumba (ed. Royce), Edw. III. ii. 234-68. [XIII-XIV cen.] 13 Tbid., F. 39 (6). 8 Edw. III. 7 Ped. Fin., 73-12-207. 20 Hen. III. 466 Township Oldland Oxenton Shipton Moyne Sudbury Stoke Orchard Tewkesbury Tockington APPENDIX II Description Extent of the demesne arable, of which “ tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi.’ ! Extent of the demesne arable, ‘‘ unde due partes semi- nantur et tertia pars iacet ad warectam et frisca hoc anno.”’? Extent of the demesne arable which lies “in communi, unde due partes seminabantur ante [26 April] et tertia pars iacet ad warectam et in communi.”’ ® Extent. ‘‘ Sunt in dominico cccclx acre terre arabilis quarum cccvii acre seminate fuerunt ante [20 July]. ... Et cliii acre non possunt extendi quia iacent ad warectam et in communi.” 4 Extent. Phraseology as in Sudbury extent. In de- mesne are roo acres, of which 60 are sown. Extent. Phraseology as in Sudbury extent. In de- mesne are 400 acres, of which 270 are sown.® Extent. ‘‘ Sunt in dominico cxxii acre terre arabilis. ... De quibus seminabantur hoc anno ante [10 July] iiii** acre semine yemali et quadragesimali et residuum iacet ad warectam et in communi.” ? HAMPSHIRE AND THE ISLE OF WIGHT. TWO-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Barton Stacy Bullington Forton Hinton Middleton 1 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 61 (13). 14 Edw. III. The enclosure award allots 1807 acres lying in two great fields of similar size, named East and West.® Grant of 8} acres in 12 parcels in campo australi and 93 acres in 10 parcels in campo boriali. A virgate comprises Io acres in campo aquilonari and 12 acres in campo australi Exchange of a mill, a meadow, and four acres of arable, of which “due sunt in campo de Northt et due sunt in campo de Soudh.”’ Lands of the priory of Twineham comprise a croft of 52 acres and 1722 acres in 14 “‘ culture ” in North field and 1442 acres in g “‘ culture ”’ in South field. "4 Grant of ‘‘ duo curtilagia ... et octo acre terre unde tres acre iacent in campo boriali [in 2 parcels] et quinque acre iacent in campo australi [in 5 par- cels].’’ 2 7 Ibid., F. 51 (8). 11 Edw. III. 8 Chancery Close Ro. 1757. 2 Ibid., F. 56 (1). 12 Edw. III. 3 Ibid., F. 62 (6). 14 Edw. IIL. 4 Tbid., F. 51 (12). 11 Edw. III. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 9 Egerton MS. 2104, ff. 596, 160. [XIII cen. copy-] 10 Tbid., f. 34b. 1234. 1 Cott. MS., Tib. D VI, vol. ii. f. 71. 34 Edw. I. 12 Egerton MS. 2104, f. 139. 11 Edw. II. Township Week Wherwell Newtown, Isle of Wight Somerford, Isle of Wight APPENDIXAT (+ 467 Description Grant of ‘“‘ duas acras et dimidiam in utroque campo et unam virgatam prati et duas acras quas Martinus tenuit scil. in utroque campo unam et duas acras quas Sewynas tenuit scil. in utroque campo unam.” ! ; Grant of 4 acres ‘‘ in campo de Wherwell quarum una iacet in campo orientali in cultura que vocatur dodenam et in campo occidentali tres acre [in 3 parcels].”’ ? Extent of demesne arable, viz., “in cultura in quodam campo quod vocatur le Suth- feld continentur xxxii acre i roda et in cultura que vocatur le Nortfeld continentur xxx acre et dimidia terre.” 4 Lands of the prior of Twynham comprise a croft of 63 acres and in 6 “ culture ’’ in West field 30 acres and in 9 “ culture ” in East field 983 acres.‘ HAMPSHIRE. THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Andover Charlton Enham Bradley Drayton in the parish of Barton Stacy Faccombe Oakley, [Church] A long series of small grants of land in each of these townships. Three fields appear in each, viz., at Andover, East, South, and West fields at Charlton, North, South, and West fields at Enham, North, South, and East fields.® Grant of 23 acres in campo qui vocatur Westfeld and 23 acres in campo qui vocatur Northfeld and 23 acres in campo qui vocatur Estfeld§ Lands from which tithes are due are enumerated at length. Apart from a few crofts they lie in ‘le Estfeld,”’ “‘ le Sowthfelde,”’ and “‘ Westfeld.” 7 Terrier of the parsonage glebe, which is “‘ accounted one yard land.’”’ Besides crofts of 23 acres, it com- prises in Middle field 133 acres in 11 parcels in South field 73 acres in 6 parcels in North field ro acres in 13 parcels.® Compotus rolls. In 1338 the campus orientalis and campus australis are sown, in 1398 the West field.’ 1 Egerton MS. 2104, ff. 380, 2108. 33 Hen. III. 6 Ped. Fin., 203-8-55. 33 Hen. III. 2 [bid., f. r55. [XIII cen. copy.] 7 Egerton MS. 2104, f. 204. [Edw. III.] 3 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 579. 28 Edw. I. 8 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 1/31. 16 Jas. I. 4 Cott. MS., Tib. D VI, vol. ii.f. 715. 34 Edw. I. 9 G. W. Kitchin, Manor of Manydown (Hamp- 5 Magd. Coll., Brackley Deeds. [Late XIII shire Rec. Soc., 1895), pp. 151, 160. 1338, cen.] 13098. 468 APPENDIX II Township Description “Est Acle ’’ [Oakley ?] Grant of 16 acres of arable, ‘‘ unde sex acre terre iacent in cultura que vocatur Sud- feld ... septem acre terre iacent in campo qui vocatur Nordfeld ... [in 2 parcels] et tres acre terre iacent in campo qui vocatur Est- feld.””} Wroxhall, Isle of Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises Wight in campo australi 44 acres in campo orientali 823 acres in campo boriali 81} acres.” Hinton Extent. ‘ Sunt in dominico ccxxx acre terre arabilis de quibus clx acre possunt seminari per annum ... et Ixx ... non possunt extendi quia iacent ad warectam et in communi per totum annum.’’? Lasham Extent. ‘Sunt ibidem iiii**x acre terre arabilis de quibus lx acre ... possunt seminari per annum ... et xxx acre non possunt extendi quia iacent ad warectam et in communi per totum annum.’’4 Nutley Extent. ‘Sunt in dominico cciiii acre terre arabilis de quibus cxxxvi acre possunt seminari per an- num.... Et lxvii acre... non possunt extendi quia iacent ad warectam et in communi per totum annum.” 5 Tystede Extent. ‘ Sunt ibidem ciiii*iiii acre de quibus cxxiii acre possunt seminari per annum.... Et Ikxi acre ... non possunt extendi quia iacent ad warec- tam et in communi per totum annum.” ® HEREFORDSHIRE. 'THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Asperton and Stretton Extent. The three carucates of demesne arable are Grandison worth only a certain amount, “ quia tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi.” 7 Bickerton Extent. A carucate of demesne arable is worth only 20 s., “quia tertia pars iacet ad warectam et in communi.’ 8 Castle Richard Extent of two carucates of demesne arable. “ Et tertia pars earundem iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi.” ? 1 Ped. Fin., 203-8-9. 31 Hen. III. 6 Ibid. 2 Rents & Survs., Ro. 579. 28 Edw. 1. 7 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. ITI, F. 43 (4). 9 Edw. 3 C. Ina. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 37 (20). 8 Edw. II. III. 8 Tbid., F. 44 (5). 9 Edw. III. 4 Ibid., F. 46 (14). 10 Edw. III. 9 Ibid., F. 62 (7). 14 Edw. III. 5 Ibid., F. 41 (10). 8 Edw. III. Township Eyton Gransden Hemingford Toseland Yelling Coppingford Folksworth Hammerton Keyston APPENDIX II ~ 469 Description Extent. Two carucates of demesne arable are worth only a certain amount, “ quia tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi.’ ! HUNTINGDONSHIRE. TWO-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Grant of three acres, of which 13 lie in campo qui vocatur Estfeld and 13 lie 77 campo qui vocatur Westfeld2 Extent of a messuage, garden, 10 acres of meadow, and 100 acres of arable “in communi, de quibus possunt seminari per annum Ix acre. ... ’’3 Extent of a messuage, 8 acres of meadow, 4 of pasture, 6 of woodland, and 200 of arable “‘ in communi, de quibus possunt seminari per annum c acre. ... ”’ 4 Extent of a messuage and 120 acres of arable “ in com- muni, de quibus possunt seminari Ix per annum.” ® HUNTINGDONSHIRE. THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Transfer of a messuage and 62 acres, of which “due acre et una roda iacent in campo versus Bokeswrth due acre et una roda iacent in campo versus Hamer- ton et due acre et una roda iacent in campo versus Aylbriktesl’.”’ ® A survey arranged by fields and furlongs. There are three rather large fields and one small one, viz., West field with 12 furlongs, Bulmere field with 7 furlongs, Middle field with 18 furlongs, and the “ fylde to Styltonwarde ” with 4 small furlongs.” Transfer of 8 acres (part of a virgate), of which “tres acre iacent in campo versus Copmanneford tres acre iacent in campo versus Salenegrove et due acre iacent in campo versus Wynewyk.”’ ® Survey. The arable of the holdings is divided among three fields, e.g., “terra arabilis et leylonde in Mill field per estima- tionem xvii acre terra arabilis et leylonde in Gotteredge field per estimationem xv acre terra arabilis et leylonde in Morton field per estima- tionem xviii acre.” ® 1 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 43 (4). 9 Edw. 5 Tbid. III. 6 Ped. Fin., 92-9-175. 32 Hen, III. 2 Ped. Fin., 92-9-163. 32 Hen. III. 7 Add. MS. 29611. 4 Edw. VI. 3 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. II, F.82 (9). 17 Edw. II. 8 Ped. Fin., 92-10-188. 32 Hen. III. 4 Ibid. 9 Land Rev., M. B. 216, ff. 71-104. 3 Jas. I. 470 APPENDIX II Township Description Overton Transfer of 12 acres which are part of a virgate, viz., in various furlongs 4 acres in 4 parcels in Middel field 4 acres in 5 parcels in campo australi 4 acres in 5 parcels. Weston Transfer of 20 acres, of which ““septem iacent in campo qui vocatur Estfeld septem iacent in campo qui vocatur Westfeld quatuor iacent in campo qui vocatur Brokfeld et due iacent in campo qui vocatur Badelisford.”’ ? St. Neots Extent. The prior ‘“ tenet in dominico suo ibidem vii°xx acre terre arabilis quarum ... ii°xl acre... iacent ad warectam et.in communi et nihil valent per annum.’’4 LEICESTERSHIRE. ‘TWO-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Cotes Daval Grant of 10 acres of demesne arable in uno campo and 10 acres in alio campo.* Croxton General description of the arable of the township with reference to campus orientalis and campus occi- dentalis Gilmorton The enclosure award allots 784 acres in Usser field, 548 in Mill field, and 632 in Ridgway field.® Newton Harcourt Grant of ‘“‘ quinque acras de dominico, scil., duas acras terre et dimidiam ex una parte predicte ville et duas acras terre et dimidiam ex altera parte predicte ville in illa parte, scilicet, versus occidentem [13, 3, 3 acres] ex altera parte versus orientem [13, 1 acres].’’7 Owston Transfer of the half of a virgate, scil., “in campis ex parte aquilonali ville versus solem et ex parte australi remotius a sole.” ® Segrave Transfer of “‘ una acra ex una parte campi et alia acra ex altera parte.” 9 Slawton and Othorp Terrier showing, in many parcels, in campo occidentali 48} acres in campo orientali 38% acres in campo de Outhorp’ 142 acres.” 1 Ped. Fin., 92-2-26. 10 John. 7 Cott. MS., Nero C XII, f. 92. [XIV cen. 2 Ibib., 92-10-181. 32 Hen. III. copy.] 3 Add. MS. 6164, f. 420. 44 Edw. III. 8 Ped. Fin., r21-10-78. 6 Hen. III. 4 Cott. MS., Vitel. A I, f. 106. [XV cen. copy.] 9 Nichols, Leicestershire, ii, App., p. 111, from 5 John Nichols, Leicestershire, ii, App., p. 81, Segrave Cartl., Harl. MS. 4748. [1201-41.] Memd. 1258. 10 Cott. MS., Claud. C V. [Late XIV cen.] 6 C. P. Recov. Ro., 19 Geo. III, Mich. 1778. Township Sysonby Sysonby Thurnby Twyford APPENDIX II 471 Description Transfer of ‘“ tres virgatas terre, scil., ... XXv acras in uno campo et in altero totidem.” ! Transfer of a half-carucate, scil., ‘“ xx [acras] in uno campo et xx in alio campo et x acras ubi est situs loci domorum suarum.” ? Transfer of 45 acres of arable, viz., in uno campo 19 acres in 15 parcels in alio campo 26 acres in 13 parcels. Grant of ‘“‘ unam partem tofti mei et ... duas seliones in campo occidentali et unam rodam in campo orientali.” 4 LEICESTERSHIRE. ‘THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Arnesby Barsby and S. Croxton Beeby Bowden, Great Burton Lazars Burton Lazars Terrier of two yard-lands, viz., in the Brooke field 11 acres of arable, 7 acres of layes, meadow, pastures, and feeding in the East field 12 acres of arable, 73 acres of layes, meadow, pastures, and feeding in the North field 11 acres of arable, 8 acres of layes, meadow, pastures, and feeding.® Areas allotted by the enclosure award lie in three large fields called Nether, Middle, and Upper.® Transfer of ‘‘ medietatem unius bovate, scil., unam acram et tres rodas in campis versus australem partem et tres dimidias acras in Halwefeld’ ... et unam acram et tres rodas in Linkefeld... .”’7 Areas allotted by the enclosure award lie in East, West, and South fields.® Transfer of 20 acres of arable, of which 6% are fallow.° “ Registrum omnium terrarum arabilium ... prioris de lewes,”’ viz., : in the West field about 103 acres in 11 parcels in the Nether field about 23 acres in 24 parcels in the Manmylne field about 28% acres in 20 parcels in the Over field about 29 acres in 28 parcels." 1 Nichols, Leicestershire, ii, App., Pp. 137, from 5 Rents. & Survs., Portf. }, memb. 4. [Chas. Cartl. Gerendon Abbey, Lansd. MS. 415, f. I.] 1b. [XIII cen. copy.] 6 C. P. Recov. Ro., 39 Geo. III, Trin. 1798. 2 Ibid., App., p. 138, from Lansd. MS. 415, f. 7 Ped. Fin., 121-6-126. 10 John. 12. [XIII cen. copy.] 8 C. P. Recov. Ro., 17 Geo. III, Trin. | 1777. 3 Cott. MS., Calig. A XII, f. 143. [XIII cen. 9 Anc. Deeds, A 1437. [Early XIV cen.] copy.] 10 Add. MS. 8930, ff. 41-46. 1493. 4 Cott. MS., Nero C XII, f. 855. [Copy of 1404.] 472 Township Clawson Etton Freeby Kirkby Bellars Melton Mowbray Norton Rollestone Rotherby Stonesby APPENDIX II Description Survey showing the arable of the tenants’ holdings “ in tribus campis ibidem vocatis le peazefeld, the wheatfeld, and the fallow feld.”’ Grant of a part of the sixth of a hide, scil., “iiii acras et dimidiam inter Etton et Elinton in Estfeld et iiii acras et unam rodam in Sudhfeld et ii acras et dimidiam in Aldefeld et v acras et dimidiam in Westfeld et ii acras prati in Lenstang.”’ ? Terrier of two virgates, viz., in Sowthefyld 16 acres in 25 parcels in Northfyld 15} acres in 19 parcels, one of which contains 32 selions in Westfyld and Estfyld 14} acres in 29 parcels.’ Grant of a toft and 8$ acres of arable, viz., in campo occidentali 2% acres in 7 parcels in medio campo 4% acres in 11 parcels in campo orientali 2} acres in 7 parcels.4 Terrier of three large holdings evenly divided between “ Fallowfyld [or] Sowthefeld, Peysefyld [or] West- fyld, Whetefyld [or] Northefyld.”’® View of the lands of the abbot of Owston, viz., in campo boriali 69% acres in 187 selions lying in 14 furlongs in campo occidentali 70}; acres in 268 selions lying in 23 furlongs in campo australi 51% acres in 246 selions lying in 35 furlongs.® “Territor’ Prioris domus Cartusiensis Londonie,’ whose lands comprised in campo orientali 173 acres in 43 parcels in campo boriali 169} acres in 63 parcels in campo occidentali 269% acres in 67 parcels.’ Terrier of the demesne lands of the priory of Chalcombe, which comprised in East field 683 acres in Middle field 62 acres in “ le heyfeld ”’ 68 acres.’ The enclosure award and plan show three large fields, Mill field, Waltham Gate field, and Gasthorp Gate field.® , 1 Land Rev., M. B. 220, ff. 66-76. 7 Jas. I. 5 Add. MS. 8930, f. 12 sg. 24 Hen. VII. 2 Ped. Fin., 121-3-57. 2 John. 6 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 386. 1360. 3 Add. MS. 8930, ff. 8-11. 24 Hen. VII. 7 Ibid, Ro. 388. 13 Hen. VII. 4 Cott. MS., Nero C XII, f. 59s. [Copy of 8 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 378, f.17b. [Edw. IIT.] 1484.] 9 C. P. Recov. Ro., 21 Geo. III, Easter. 1781. Township Stoughton Theddingworth Twyford Walton and Kimcote APPENDIX II 473 Description “ Memorandum quod sunt in dominico ccxiii acre per maius centum ... viz., in campo boreali versus Thurnby v™ acre viz., iili* infra fossam et xx extra fossam in campo orientali vocato Longwong [60 acres includ- ing a close of 16 acres] in campo australi [93 acres].” ! Terrier of ‘... Addygtons Land lately dyssessed,” which comprised in Santles field 27 acres of arable in 43 parcels and 18 acres of meadow in 25 parcels in Nonhylls field 22 acres of arable in 40 parcels and 113 acres of meadow in 20 parcels in Gostyll field 29 acres of arable in 44 parcels and 19 acres of meadow in 33 parcels.” The allotments of the enclosure award lie in Nether, Spinney, and Mill fields.* Terrier of the lands of Gabriell Pulteney, Esq., which comprised 53 yard-lands “‘ in very greate measure,” viz., in the North field 38 acres of arable and 6 acres of meadow in the Middle field 363 acres of arable and 5% acres of meadow in the South field 353 acres of arable and 8 acres of meadow. LINCOLNSHIRE. TWO-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Aylesby Barnetby upon the Wolds Barton [upon Humber] Benniworth The township contained 29 bovates, “‘ita quod quelibet bovata contineat in se sexdecim acras terre, scil., octo acras ex una parte ville et totidemex altera.”’® The enclosure award divides some 2000 acres almost equally between the North field and the South field.® Grant of a half-bovate, containing in campo occidentali 5 acres in 2 parcels in campo orientali 5 acres in 4 parcels.” Terrier of ‘‘ quindecies xx acras terre arabilis ex una parte ipsius ville et quatuordecies xx et xv acras et unam perticatam et quinque fall[las] terre arabi- lis ex altera parte ville.” There is no field rubric 1 Nichols, Leicestershire, i, App., p. 96, from 4 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 909. 34 Eliz. Rent. Monast. S. Marie de Pratis Leyces- 5 Cartl. Prior. de Gyseburne (Surtees Soc., trie. [7 Hen. IV.] T8gr), li. 315. [1218-21.] 2 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 10/22. [Eliz.] 6 C. P. Recov. Ro., 8 Geo. III, Trin. 1766. 3 C. P. Recov. Ro., 39 Geo. III, Trin. 17096. 7 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XX, f. 155. 474 Township Benniworth (continued) Branston Burwell Claxby Claxby Coates Cockerington, South Croxton Grimblethorp Grimsby, Great Haburgh Legbourne Limber, Great Norton 1 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVIII, f. 27. [XIII cen. copy.] 2 Tbid., f. 605. [XIII cen. copy.] 3 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 10/57, f. 4b. 6 Jas. I. APPENDIX II Description at the beginning of the enumeration, but halfway through occurs “in orientali campo.” ! Grant of 3{ acres in 2 parcels in campo orientali and 2} acres in 2 parcels in campo occidentali.? “ Robt. Taler holdeth in both the feildes of Burwell ...” [amount torn]. Survey of the manor. Tenants’ holdings are divided between North field (not always named) and South field.‘ Grant of one-half of a bovate, viz., 4 acres on the south of the vill and 4 on the north.5 Grant of “ quinque acras terre ex una parte ville... et quinque ex altera.’’ Grant of “ unam bovatam terte de dominico meo in campo de Chottes, scil., x acras terre ex una parte ville et x ex altera.’’® Schedule of attainted lands. ‘... Oonclosse ... and also he holdyth iii acres of arrable lande lieng in ye Estfeld and oon acre in ye Westfeld.”’7 The enclosure award and plan show two large and ap- proximately equal fields, East and West.’ Grant of “ decem acras terre arabilis ... scil., v in orientali campo [in 3 parcels] et v in occidentali campo [in 6 parcels].”’ 9 Survey. ‘“‘ Et decem acre seminate, id est, decem acre ex una parte ville et decem ex altera parte faciunt unam bovatam. ... ” The enclosure award allots 2500 acres in North field, South field, and the Marsh." Survey of the manor. Often one-third of a holding is enclosed pasture, but the remainder is divided be- tween East field and West field.” Assignment of dower. The arable transferred comprises in campo orientali 5 acres in g parcels in campo occidentali 5 acres in 8 parcels." Grant of 8 acres, of which 4 lie ad uwmbram and 4 ad solem."4 8 C. P. Recov. Ro., 52 Geo. III, Trin. 1809. ® Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVIII, f. 96. [XIII cen. copy.] 10 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 406. 7 Hen. VII. 4 Exch. K. R., M. B. 43, ff. 1-36. 30 Eliz. 11 C. P. Recov. Ro., 1 Geo. IV, Trin. 1820. 5 W. O. Massingberd and W. Boyd, Final Con- 2 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 10/57. 6 Jas. I. cords (London, 1896), i. 27. {Late XIV cen. copy.] II. 6 Harl. MS. 3640, f. 98. 4 John. 13 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 37 (12). 7 Edw. 7 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 10/38. 38 Hen. VIII. 14 Massingberd and Boyd, Final Concords, i. 284. 18 Hen. III. Township Stainton Stubton Thurlby Ulceby Winceby Baston Grimsby, [Great] Cabourne Swallow Tetney Thorganby Weelsby Harrington Leadenham Leasingham 1 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVIII. | SSS APPENDIX II 475 Description Grant of three selions, of which one lies im aguilonali campo and two lie im australi campo.' From a bovate are granted 4 acres of land in the North field and 3% acres in the South field.” The demesne arable lies in campo qui dicitur Westfeld in 6 “‘ culture ” and in campo qui dicitur Estfeld in 7 “‘ pecie.’’ 3 Grant of a half-bovate, scil., “vy acras ex una parte ville et v acras ex alia parte.” Two bevates lie in Est campo in 6 parcels and in West campo in 6 parcels.* Grant of a half-bovate which lies “in boriali parte ville ... in tribus locis et in meridionali parte in quatuor locis.’’ > Extent. ‘“‘ De predictis iii**x acris terre arabilis XXX acre possunt seminari per annum.... Et residuum iacebit ad warectam et tunc nichil valet quia in communi.”’ § Extents. At Grimsby “sunt... de terris dominicis iiii*iiii acre terre arabilis de quibus xlii acre pos- sunt seminari quolibet anno et alie xlii acre iacent quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi.” The demesne lands of the other manors of the abbot of Grimsby are similarly described.’ Extent. ‘‘ Sunt in dominico iiii*™* acre terre arabilis ... et xl acre possunt seminari per annum ... et re- siduum iacet ad warectam et tunc nichil valet quia in communi.” — Extent. ‘Sunt in dominico xii bovate terre unde vi bovate possunt seminari per annum.... Et re- sidue vi bovate terre iacebunt ad warectam et tunc nichil valent quia in communi.” ? Extent. ‘Sunt in dominico clx acre terre arabilis de quibus possunt seminari per annum iili** ... et totum residuum nichil valet quia iacet warectum et In communi.” !° [XIII cen. copy.] 6 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 38 (28). 2 Massingberd and Boyd, Final Concords, i. 8 Edw. III. 244. 15 Hen. III. 7 Add. MS. 616s, ff. 63-65. 5 Hen. IV. 3 Cott. MS., Nero C VII, f. r49. [x Hen. IV.] 8 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 39 (3). 8 Edw. 4 Cott. MS., Vesp., E XVIII, ff. 15, 12. [1280- Iii. 1318, and late XIII cen. copy.] 9 Ibid., F. 40 (8). 8 Edw. III. 5 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XX, f. 116. [XIV cen. 10 Tbid., F. 51 (5). 11 Edw. III. copy.] 476 Township Morton Ringstone Searby APPENDIX II Description Extent. ‘ Sunt in dominico clx acre terre arabilis unde ‘medietas potest seminari per annum ... et residu- um nihil valet per annum quia incommuni campo.”’! Extent. Phraseology and areas are like those of the extent of Leasingham.? Extent. ‘‘ Sunt in dominico cx acre terre quorum lv acre quolibet anno seminabiles ... et lv iacent ad warectam et in communi et ideo nullius valoris.”’ 4 LINCOLNSHIRE. THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Burton iuxta Lincoln Canwick Doddington Gedney and Gouxhill Kexby Scotter Stowe Upton Extent. ‘‘ Quelebet bovata continet xii acras terre unde possunt seminari quolibet anno ... viii acre . et residuum ... quod iacet ad warectam nichil valet pro eo quod iacet in communi.’’ 4 Extent. ‘Sunt in dominico vi*viii acre terre arabilis de quibus due partes possunt seminari per annum et residuum nichil valet quia iacet ad warectam et in communi.’’® Extent. ‘Sunt in dominico vi acre terre arabilis quarum iiii** possunt seminari per annum ... et residuum iacet ad warectam et in communi.”’ ® Extent. “Sunt in dominico vi* acre terre arabilis quarum iii? possunt seminari per annum et valet acra quum seminatur xiid.... et quum non semi- natur lacet warecta et in communi.”’?7 Extent of the demesne, which comprises “in campo australi xliii acre terre arabilis et dimidia in campo occidentali xxxii acre terre arabilis in campo boriali xxxvii acre et tres rode terre ara- bilis.”’ 8 Extent of the demesne, which comprises 20 parcels lying im campo qui dicitur Midilfeld 26 parcels lying in campo boriali 21 parcels lying in campo occidentali.® The enclosure award makes allotments in three large fields, Skelton, Normanby, and West.” Extent of the demesne, which comprises “in campo orientali xxiiii acre et dimidia in campo boriali xvi acre in campo occidentali xxi acre.”’ #4 1 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 37 (22). 8 Edw. 6 Ibid., F. 52 (5). xz Edw. III. Ii. 7 Ibid., F. 54 (10). 12 Edw. III. 2 Ibid., F. 51 (5). 11x Edw. III. 8 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 409. 18 Edw. I. 3 Ibid., F. 59 (8). 13 Edw. III. % Cott. MS., Nero C VII, f. 210. [rz Hen. IV.] 4 Ibid., F. 68 (14). 17 Edw. III. 10 C. P. Recov. Ro., 49 Geo. III, Hil. 1808. 5 Ibid., F. 54 (11). 12 Edw. III. 1 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 409. [18 Edw. I.] Township Adstone Althorp Astcote Pattishall “* Edeweneskote ’ Bodington Brackley Brackley Canons Ashby Chalcombe Culworth Drayton APPENDIX II a77 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE. TWO-FIELD TOWNSHIPS | 1 Anc. Deeds, B 2309. 2 Cott. MS., Tib. EV, f. 40d. 3 Harl. Char. 57 F 24. 1200.] 5 Ibid., 4. [c. 1260.] {Early XIV cen.] [XIV cen. copy.] 5 Edw. I. 4 Magd. Coll., Brackley Deeds, C 97. Description Grant of 173 acres of arable, viz., 73 acres in campo occidentali in 1g parcels and 9 acres in campo horientali in 26 parcels.! Grant of a messuage and 4 acres of arable, viz., due in una parte campi in 3 parcels et due 7m alia parte campi in 3 parcels.? Transfer of “‘ quatuor viginti acras terre in campis de Pateshulle, Acheskote et Edeweneskote, viz., quadraginta acre de warecta et quadraginta acre terre seminate.”’ ® Grant of 4 acres of arable, viz., 2 in the eastern field and 2 in the western field. + Grant of 8 acres in the fields, viz., in the South field 4 acres in 7 parcels in the North field 4 acres in 7 parcels.’ Grant of 20 acres in the fields, viz., in the North field ro acres in half-acre parcels in the South field 63 acres in half-acre parcels in the Baulond 2 acres and in a croft 1 acre. ® “‘Tarrer of Thomas Gaywood’s londs yn the Estfelld & the Westfelld,”’ viz., in the East field 2 acres and 90 “yards” in 9 parcels in the West field 20 acres and 42 “‘yards” in 8 parcels.7 A long terrier of the lands of Chalcombe Priory. The arable is divided into two series of parcels, one comprising 76% acres, the other 773. Owing to an injury to the manuscript, the names of the two fields are missing in connection with the arable, but are given in connection with the meadow as East and West. ® Grant of 62 acres, viz., a croft of 4 acres, and in campo boriali 28 acres in 72 parcels in campo australi 30 acres similarly subdivided.® Grant of 43 acres in the fields, viz., in campo de Norht 2} acres in 5 parcels et in campo de Sw’ 2} acres in 5 parcels.” 6 Ibid., 63. [c. 1260.] 7 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 13/20. [Hen. VIII.] 8 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 378. [Mid. XIV cen.] 9 Add. Char. 44285. 24 Edw. I. 1 Cott. MS., Claud. D XII, f. 40. copy.] [1190- [XIII cen. 478 Township Evenley Evenley Farthinghoe Fawsley Flower Gayton Haddon, West Harleston Harpole Harrowdon APPENDIX II Description Grant of 2 acres in the fields, viz., in the Eastern field 1} acres and in the Western field 4 acre. There are several similar charters.! Transfer of ro acres, viz., 5 acres of arable in the East field and 5 acres of arable in the West field.? Grant of all the land which Hallough held, viz., a mes- suage, croft, and 6 acres in one field and 6 in another.’ Grant of “ due acre terre de eorum dominico ... scil., in campo aquilonari unam acram in campo australi unam acram.”’ 4 Grant from the demesne of “ decem acre terre in campo orientali et decem acre terre in campo occidentali et quinque in campo orientali et quinque acre in campo occidentali.”’ > Grant of 16} acres of arable, viz., in campo occidentali 7% acres in 12 parcels (the char- ter is injured and the remaining 8} acres do not appear) “cum duabus rodis prati quarum una iacet in campo occidentali et altera in campo orientali.” ® Terrier of ‘‘ totam terram subscriptam in campis, viz., in campo australi [several parcels] in campo boriali [several parcels].’’7 Grant of 12 acres, viz., 6 acres in campo australi and 6 in campo boriali. Grant of 7} acres, viz., in campo australi 33 acres in 7 parcels in campo boriali 4 acres in 8 parcels.8 Grant of a toft and [field name omitted] 23 acres in 3 parcels and in alio campo a head-acre and 3 half-acres.9 A long but probably incomplete terrier locating parcels in “ Estfeld ” and in “‘ Westfeld.’’ 1 Magd. Coll., Brackley Deeds, B 178. [c. 1220- 7 Cott. MS., Claud. D XII, f. 1206. [XV cen. 30.] 2 Bodl., Rawl. B 408, f. 450. in English, of an old charter.] copy.] [XV cen copy, 8 Cott. MS., Nero C XII, ff. 174, 176. [Late XIII cen. copy.] 3 Magd. Coll., Brackley Deeds, B 246. [c. 1200.] ® Cott. MS., Tib. E V, f. 296. [XIV cen. 4 Cott. MS., Claud. D XII, f. 104. [1231-64.] copy.] 5 Ped. Fin., 171-7-86. 4 John. 10 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVII, f. 320. [Late XV 6 Cott. MS., Tib. E V, ff. 130, 130b. [XIV cen.] cen. copy.] Township Heyford, Nether Holdenby Hothorp Kislingbury Preston Radstone Rushton Southorp Staverton Sulgrave Thrup APPENDIX II 479 Description Grant of 3 acres, scil., in occidentali campo 2 acres in 4 parcels in orientali campo 1 acre in 2 parcels.! Grant of 36 acres of arable “de libero meo dominico, scil., decem et octo acre in campo orientali et decem et octo acre in campo occidentali.” ? Grant for a chapel “ de singulis virgatis, unam acram ex una parte ville et aliam ex altera.”’’ Grant of 2 acres, scil., in campo occidentali 1 acre in 2 parcels in campo orientali 1 acre in 2 parcels. 4 Grant of 95 acres of demesne arable and 93 acres of demesne meadow, scil., in campo versus aquilonem 44 acres of arable and 63 acres of meadow in campo versus australem 51 acres of arable and 23 acres of meadow.® Grant of 2 acres, viz., in the South field 1 acre in 2 parcels in the North field 1 acre in 2 parcels.® Grant of a mill, “‘ cum duabus acris terre, una in uno campo et alia in alio.’’7 Transfer of a half-bovate comprising in campo boriali 8 selions in 4 places and in campo australi 6 selions in 4 places.® Many charters detailing land in campus borialis and campus, australis, e.g., in campo boriali 53 acres in 7 parcels in campo australi 5 acres in g parcels (f. 73).° Transfer of “ unam virgatam ... domum et cotagium, scil., unam acram terre cum dimidia acra terre in uno campo et tantum in alio campo et item sex acras terre de inlonde in uno campo et unam acram prati et sex acras in alio campo et unam acram prati. Terrier of the demesne of the prior of Chalcumbe, which comprised 92710 1 Cott. MS., Tib. E V, f. 36. [XIV cen. copy.] 6 Magd. Coll., Brackley Deeds, B 148. [c.1220- 2 Add. Char. 21897. 3 Add. Char. 22012. [XIII cen.] 30.] [Early XIII cen.] 7 Cott. MS., Tib. EV, f. 84. [XIV cen. copy.] 4 Cott. MS., Tib. E V, f. 30). [XIV cen. 8 Exch. Treas. Recpt., M. B. 71, f. 52. 1393. copy.] 9 Cott. MS., Claud. D XII, ff. 73-82. [XV 5 Ped. Fin., 171-3-62; printed, Pipe Roll Soc., cen. copies.] Publ., 1900, xxiv, no. 225. to Rich. I. 10 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVII, f. 1630. [c. 1200. 480 Township Thrup (continued) Thurlaston Weedon Welton Welton Woodford Pattishall Stowe Warden, [Chipping] Weston iuxta Weedon APPENDIX II Description in campo boriali 49} acres in 68 parcels in campo australi 42} acres in 61 parcels.! Transfer of 4 acres of arable, viz., 2 acres in 4 parcels ex una parte campi 2 acres in 4 parcels ex alia parle campi2 A series of leases assigning to tenants parcels in North field and South field. The longest (no. 40) de- scribes in North field 82 parcels consisting of 44 lands, 23 butts, 29 “‘ yards,”’ and 20 leys in South field 85 parcels consisting of 37 lands, 18 butts, 50 “‘ yards,” and 26 leys.* Grant of 1} acres of arable, viz., in campo occidentali } acre in’ 1 parcel in campo orientali 1 acre in 2 parcels.$ Transfer of 6 acres of arable, scil., “iii in uno campo et iii in alio.”’® Transfer of 24 acres of arable in the fields, viz., “‘ xii acras in uno campo et xii acras in altero campo.’’ ® Extent of the demesne arable, “‘ unde medietas potest seminari per annum. ... Et altera medietas nic- hil valet per annum quia iacet ad warectam et tunc est communis.” 7 Extent. ‘‘Item sunt ibidem in dominico ccxl acre terre arabilis de quibus possunt seminari per an- num cxx et ... cxx acre terre iacent ad warectam que nihil valent per annum quia dicta warecta est communis omnibus tenentibus ibidem.”’ 8 Extent of the demesne arable, “‘de quibus medietas po- test seminari per annum et ... alia medietas que iacet ad warectam nichil valet per annum quia in communi campo.” ? Extent. ‘‘ Predicta virgata continet xxxii acras terre quarum medietas potest seminari per annum.... Et alia medietas quolibet anno ad warectam cuius proficuus nichil valet quia iacet in communi campo.” 1 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 378, f. 29. [Mid. XIV 6 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVII, f. 128b. [XV cen. cen.] copy.] 2 Cott. MS., Calig. A XIII, f.117b. [Late XIV 7 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 47 (5). 10 cen. copy.] Edw. III. 3 All Souls MSS., Terriers 37, 38, 40. 1586-87. 8 Ibid., F. 1 (12). x Edw. III. 4 Anc. Deeds, A 3065. 5 Edw. III. 9 Ibid., F. 40 (6). 8 Edw. III. 5 Cott. MS., Claud. D XII, f.82b. [KVcen. Ibid., F. 68 (22). 17 Edw. III. copy.] APPENDIX II 481 NoRTHAMPTONSHIRE. ‘'[HREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Township Description Adstone, or Canons Terrier of land belonging to the prior of Ashby, viz., Ashby [field rubric omitted] 63 acres in 12 parcels in campo borientali 62 acres in 12 parcels in campo occidentali 8 acres in 15 parcels. Barnack and Bainton Retention of xv acres from one carucate, ‘‘ unde v acre iacent in campo inter Bernake et Pilesgate et alie v acre iacent in campo inter viam de Stanford et Wel... e [Walcot ?] et iiili acre versus occidentalem partem ville de Bernake et i acra versus aquilonem.” ? Barnack A series of charters incidentally mentioning ‘‘ campus australis,” ‘‘ campus orientalis,” ‘‘ campus occi- dentalis,’’ and “‘ Aldefeld.”” No holding is of any size and none is divided among these fields.’ Blakesley Terrier of a virgate which comprises in campo orientali 6% acres in 11 parcels in campo borientali 7% acres in 13 parcels in campo occidentali 6% acres in 15 parcels.* Bozeat Terrier of All Souls lands in the tenure of Wm. Bettell, showing, along with 24 acres of meadow, in the Wood field 20 lands in 14 parcels in the Diche field 19 lands in 17 parcels in Sandwell field 1 acre and 24 lands in 17 parcels.® Braybrook Grant of “ triginta acras terre de domenico ... scil., undecim acras in campo versus Oxendun’ [Oxendon Magna] undecim acras in campo versus Bugedon’ [Bowden] undecim acras in campo versus Deresburc [Des- borough].”’ ® Braybrook Two charters locating small parcels ‘‘in campo orientali, in campo occidentali, et in aquilonali parte campi.’’? Braybrook A terrier of the glebe, which comprises in Loteland field 29 parcels of arable and 12 leys in Hedickes field 29 parcels of arable and 17 leys in Arnsborrow and Black fields 27 parcels of arable and 4 leys.8 Brixworth Rental of ten virgates of land, each of which is described in detail. One comprises 3 acre of meadow and in Schotenwelle field 6 acres in 11 parcels in Demmyswelle field 6 acres in 11 parcels in Whaddon field 7? acres in 11 parcels.? 1 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 13/19. [Hen. VIII.] 5 All Souls MSS., Terrier 35. 1580. 2 Ped. Fin., 171-2-24; printed, Pipe Roll Soc., 6 Ped. Fin., 171-12-210. 9 John. Publ., 1898, xxiii, no. 117. 9 Rich. I. 7 Cott. MS., Calig. A XII, ff. 105, 106. [XIII 3 Cott. MS., Faust. B ITI, ff. 586, 630, 656, 750. cen. copy.] 4 Edw. II and 2 Edw. III. 8 Stowe MS. 795, f. 219. 1631. 4 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 13/15. [Hen. VII.] § Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVII, ff. 183-194. rt Hen. VI. 482 Township Clopton Culworth Culworth Desborough Draughton Drayton Evenley Hardingstone Holdenby 1 Ped. Fin., 171-7-80. 2 Add. Char. 44291. 3 Add. Char. 44354. cen. copy.] APPENDIX II Description Grant of 42} acres “ de predicta virgata terre, scil., xvi acre et una roda inter le Frid et exitum de Clape- tom versus occidentem xiii acre et una roda inter le predictum exitum et feodum Sancti Gutlaci * xiii acre et una roda inter le predictum feodum Sancti Gutlaci et Swinehaw.”’ ! Grant of two acres, viz., in campo australi 4, } in campo occidentali } in campo boriali 3, 4, 42 Terrier of a yard-land, which contains in the South field 12 “ yerdes ” and 3 acre in 13 parcels in the West field 19 “‘ yerdes ” and 3 acre in the North field 34 “‘yerdes” and 3 acre in 30 parcels.* Grant of common of pasture “‘ per totum campum de Deseborug tam in boscis quam in campis tribus.’’ 4 Grant of a cottage and “ sex acre terre arabilis de terris dominicalibus ... quarum due acre simul iacent in campo australi septem rode simul iacent in campo boriali sex rode simul iacent in campo orientali et quinque dimidie rode simul iacent super eandem cul- turam.”’® A survey assigning to West field 529 acres to North field 573 acres and to East field 414 acres. The copyholds and leaseholds are divided among the same three fields.® A terrier of two yard-lands, which comprise in the West field 17 acres in 15 parcels in the South field 13 acres in 13 parcels in the East field 17 acres in 16 parcels.” Grant of 3 acres of arable, viz., in campo australi 1 acre in 2 parcels in campo medio 1 acre in 2 parcels in campo [septen] trionali 1 acre in 2 parcels.® Transfer of several parcels of arable located in the West field, called Langeland field, in the Wood field, and in Cargatt field.® 4 John. 6 D. of Lanc., M. B. 113, ff. 34 sg. 13 Eliz. 7 Edw. III. 7 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 13/25. (Hen. VIII {Early XVI cen.] or later.] 4 Cott. MS., Otho B XIV, f. 169. [Late XIV 8 Cott. MS., Tib. EV, ff. 115, 1156. [XIV cen. copy.] 6 Hen. V. 9 Add. Char. 21991. 32 Hen. VIII. 5 Add. Char. 81829. Township Holcot Isham Kislingbury Kislingbury Maidwell Market Harborough and Great Bowden Moulton Northampton Oundle Paulers Pury Pilsgate APPENDIX T=: 483 Description The numerous parcels of a half-virgate are divided among Fast field, Middle field, and West field.1 Terrier of a virgate, which comprises in campo australi 9 acres in 1 parcel in magno campo boriali 8} acres in 4 parcels in campo occidentali 5} acres in 3 parcels.? Transfer of ro acres of arable, viz., in campo orientali 3% acres in 11 parcels in campo australi 4? acres in 13 parcels in campo occidentali 1} acres in 4 parcels.3 Long terrier of the demesne arable, which lies in many parcels in East field, South field, and West field.4 Grant of two cottages and 43 acres lying “in campo boreali, in campo occidentali, et in campo australi.’’> Transfer of 20 acres in the fields of Great Bowden almost equally divided among South field, East field, and North field. Other charters divide their acres similarly (pp. 178, 196).§ A long terrier with apparently even division of parcels among North field, South field, and West field.” Terrier of a carucate lying in the fields of North- ampton, and comprising in campo orientali 32 acres in le Middelfeld 174 acres in campo boriali 31% acres.8 Extent of the demesne arable, which consists of 652 acres in 5 “culture” im campo qui vocatur Inham- feld 944 acres in g ‘‘pecie” in campo qui vocatur Howefeld 96% acres in 10 “‘pecie” in campo qui vocatur Holm- feld.? Richard Stuemyn holds a messuage, two cottages, one- half acre, and “ xxx acras terre errabilis et ii acras prati iacentes in communibus campis predictis vocatis parkefeild, Totehilfeild, et Myddelfeild.”’ Terriers of several holdings, with considerable variation in the distribution of acre’ among fields. One terrier (f. 145) has about the same number of acres in Nether field, West field, and South field. 1! 1 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVII, f. 52. 10 Edw. II. 7 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVII, ff. 304-3009. 2 Ibid., f. 315b. (Mid. XV cen.] o Hen. VI. 3 Add. Char. 22078. 14 Edw. III. 8 Ibid., f. 2996. (Mid. XV cen.] 4 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVII, f. 300. [Mid. XV 9 Cott. MS., Nero C VII, f. 1546. 1 Hen. cen.] IV. 5 Add. Char. 22269. 6 Hen. VI. 10 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 410, f.3. 32 Hen. 6 J. E. Stocks and W. B. Bragg, Market Har- VIII. borough Parish Records (London, 1890), 1 Cott. MS., Faust. B III, ff. rg5-152. [Mid. p. 161. 1343. XIV cen.] 484 Township Walcot Wellingborough Braybrook Clapton Corby Dallington Deanshanger Harpole Higham Ferrers Rushden APPENDIX II Description Extent of the demesne arable, which consists of 19 acres in 7 places in campo occidentali 15 acres in 4 places in campo australi 53 acres in 10 places im campo orientali (the last in- cluding 29 acres in Northdykcroft).1 A terrier, which locates many rood parcels as follows: in East field 33 roods and ro “ todel ”’ in Up field 21 roods and 11 “ todel ” in West field 32 roods and 4} “ todel.”’ ? Extent of the demesne arable, ‘‘quarum due partes pos- sunt seminari per annum ... et tertia pars ... que iacet ad warectam nichil valet quia in communi campo.” 4 ; Extent of the demesne arable. “ Et tertia pars eius- dem terre quolibet anno iacet ad warectam et est nullius valoris quia in communi campo.”’ 4 Extent. “Sunt in dominico ix™ acre terre arabilis unde CxxX possunt seminari per annum ... et residuum iacet ad warectam et tunc nichil valet quia in com- muni.” > Extent of the demesne arable. “ Et tertia pars eius- dem terre quolibet anno iacet ad warectam et est nullius valoris quia in communi campo.” ® Extent of the demesne arable, ‘‘ de quibus due partes possunt seminari per annum. ... Et tertia pars que iacet ad warectam nichil valet per annum quia semper tempore warecta [terra] est communis omnibus tenentibus ibidem.”’7 Extent of the demesne arable, of which “ tertia pars... quando iacet ad warectam nichil valet quia tunc est communis.” 8 Extent of the demesne arable, of which two-thirds may be sown yearly. ‘“‘ Et dicunt quod residuum de terra predicta iacens ad warectam nihil valet per annum quia tempore warecta [terra] est communis omnibus tenentibus ibidem.”’ ® Extent of the demesne arable, of which two-thirds may be sown yearly. ‘“‘ Et warecte terre residue nihil valent quia semper tempore warecta [haec terra] est communis omnibus tenentibus ibidem.”’ !° 1 Cott. MS., Nero C VII, f. 1645. 1 Hen. IV. 6 Cott. MS., Cleop. C II, f. 123. 20 Edw. III. 2 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XVII, f. 309). 10 Hen. VI. 7 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 47 (8). 10 3 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 40 (6). 8 Edw. III. Edw. IIL 8 Ibid., F. 53 (18). 12 Edw_ III. 4 Cott. MS., Cleop. C II, f. 123. 20 Edw. III. 9 Ibid., F.6. 1 Edw. III. 5 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. II], F. 44 (6). 9 ™ Ibid. Edw. ITI. APPENDIX II 485 Township Description Wodenhoe Extent of the demesne arable, ‘“quarum due partes pos- sunt seminari per annum ... et tertia pars... iacebit ad warectam et tunc nichil valet per annum quia in communi campo.” ! NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Cotgrave j Two bovates are withheld from a grant of one and one- fourth carucates, scil., “‘una bovata terre quam Warinus de Boville tenuit et que iacet in campo aquilonari et orientali et una bovata terre quam Walterus Capel tenuit et que iacet in campo occi- dentali.”’? Hucknall Torkard Transfer of toft, croft, and 23 acres of arable, viz., acre in the West field acre in the East field acre ad capud orientale ville acre in the South field in 2 parcels.? Lal 1 2 = 4 I Keyworth Long terrier of a holding, specifying many selions but in part illegible. The parcels seem to be pretty evenly divided among ‘“ Brokfeld, campus de Senygow, and le Wooldefelt.”’ 4 Kirton Grant of 33 acres, of which “una acra iacet in Nortfeld ... et altera in Holims et una acra in Suthfeld ... et dimidia acra in medio campo.” Each of these three fields is mentioned singly in three following charters.® Knighton Grant of two bovates, scil., in campo occidentali 5} acres in 11 parcels in campo aquilonari 7% acres in g parcels in Middelfeld 6 acres in g parcels.® Walkeringham Terriers of the holdings of eleven tenants, the acres being often divided equally among three fields, West, North, and Fast.? Wandesley Extent. ‘‘ Sunt in dominico xx acre terre ... de qui- bus tertia pars iacet quolibet anno in warecto et pastura inde nihil valet quia iacet in communi.”’ § 1C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 43 (10). 9 5 Harl. MS. 1063, f. 185. [XVII cen. copy of Edvw. III. an early charter.] 2 Ped. Fin., 182-5-142. 16 Hen. III. 6 Ped. Fin., 182-4-84. 10 Hen. III. 3 Exch. K. R., M. B. 23, f. 66. 14 Hen. IV. 7 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 13/87. 1608. 4 Cott. MS., Titus C XII, f. 147. [XIV cen. 8 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, 50 (24). 11 copy.] Edw. III. 486 Township Barford Bensington Bicester [King’s End] Bletchingdon Burford Chadlington Chadlington Chipping Norton Churchill Cleveley Cornwell ~ Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 378. 2 Bodl., Wood Donat. 10, APPENDIX II y OXFORDSHIRE. TWO-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Descriplion Terrier of a messuage and one virgate of arable in the fields, viz., in campo occidentali 10} acres in 22 parcels in campo orientali 9} acres and 3 “ forere”’ in 24 par- cels.1 Grant to the Templars of a messuage and 10} acres im campo australi in 13 furlongs and 11} acres in campo aquilonari in 13 furlongs.? Extent, with certain holdings described in detail. One half-virgate (e.g., p. 573) contains in South field 10} acres in 21 parcels in North field 11} acres in 23 parcels.* Grant of 32} acres in many parcels, viz., : “in one felde ” 14 acres and “in anothyr felde ”’ 17} acres.! Terrier of the glebe, which comprises “in le Estfyld ” 473 acres in 51 parcels ‘in le Westfylde ” 48 acres in 52 parcels.® Transfer of four holdings, the acres of which are equally divided between East field and West field, viz., 2 US. If, 27 US. 27, 15 vs. 14, 6 vs. 53.8 Grant of “‘ duas acras in uno campo et duas in alio.” 7 Valor. “Sunt ibidem ii carucate terre continentes per estimationem clx acre terre arabilis quarum iiii** acre iacent quolibet anno ad warectam... et iii?* acre quolibet anno seminande ad utramque sementem.”’ 8 “Habebit eciam dictus Vicarius v acras terre arabilis in uno campo et v in alio, cum prato ad easdem pro rata pertinente.”’ 9 Transfer of a messuage, 3 acres enclosed, and in campo orientali 173 acres in 17 parcels in campo occidentali 12 acres in 16 parcels.” Grant of 4 acres “in Cumbe near Heanhulle in one field and in another field 4 acres towards the way to Kaigham.” [Mid. XIV cen.] 7 Ibid. 107. [c. 1173.] f. 99. [Copy of 8 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 33. [Hen. VI.] Edw. I.] 9 Cartl. St. Frideswide (ed. Wigram), ii. 286. 3 Kennett, Parochial Antiquities, i. 565-578. 1340. 19 Edw. II. 10 Reg. Monast. de Winchelcumba (ed. Royce), 4 Bodl., Rawl. B 408, f. 85. [XV cen. transcript ii. 172. [c. 1280.] of a deed of Edw. I.] 11 W. H. Turner and H. O. Coxe, Calendar of 5 Bodl.,Oxfordshire Archdeaconry Papers. 1576. Charters and Rolls in the Bodleian Library 6 Eynsham Caril. (ed. Salter), i. 247. [1264-68.] (Oxford, 1878), p. 324. [c. 1220.] Township Enstone Faringdon, Little Fulwell Hampton Gay Hanwell Hensington Hook Norton Kirtlington Lidstone Middleton Milcombe Milton-under- Wychwood Newington “ Juel ” APPENDIX II © 487 Description Grant of 6 acres in the field, viz., in campo del Suht 3 acres in 6 parcels in campo del Norht 3 acres in 5 parcels.! Description of the arable demesne, of which 230% acres are in campo boriali and 1563 acres in campo australi.? Grant of one acre of arable im campo orientali and one im campo occidentali.$ Grant of ‘‘ 1 halfe hyde of londe in Gaihampton con- teynynge xxv acres of land in on feelde and also many in an othyr feelde.”’ 4 Transfer of 4 acres, of which “ due acre iacent coniunctim in uno campo ... et alie due acre iacent coniunctim in alio campo.” ® Grant of a messuage and 4 acres of arable, viz., 2 acres in the North field and 2 in the South field.® Grant of a messuage, 3 acre of meadow, and 2 acres in the East field in 4 parcels and 2 acres in another field.’ Grant of part of a half-virgate, viz., 1 acreof meadow and in uno campo 5% acres in 7 parcels and in alio campo 5% acres in 6 parcels.® Grant of 4 acres, scil., ‘in uno campo duas acras et in alio campo duas acras.”’ ? Grant of 4 acres, of which 2 lie in the East field and 2 in the West field.!° Grant of 16 acres of arable in the fields, viz., 7 acres in the South field in 7 parcels 1 acre in the West field in 1 parcel 8 acres in the North field in 8 parcels." Grant of 5 acres im uno campo in 5 parcels and 5 acres in alio campo in 5 parcels.” “John Busseby tenet i acram terre... in utroque campo. .. .Hugo Gilbert tenetimessuagium et unam acram terre in uno campo et duas terre in alio.’’8 1 Reg. Monast. de Winchelcumba (ed. Royce), 7 Turner and Coxe, Calendar of Charters, etc., 11 7.5.- en 1240.) p. 329. [c. 1200-10.] 2 Cott. MS., Nero A XII, f. 1roob. [XV cen. 8 Cartl. St. Frideswide (ed. Wigram), li. 215. copy.] [c. r210-28.] 3 Kennett, Parochial Antiquities, i. 306. [20 9 Reg. Monast. de Winchelcumba (ed. Royce), Hen. III.) 4 Bodl., Rawl. B 408 f. ob. a deed of Edw. I.] 5 Add. Char. 22016. li. 182. [c. 1235.] [XV cen. copy of 10 Bodl., Rawl. B 408, f. 91. [Edw. I.] 1. [bid., f. 886. [c. 1216—-30.] 16 Rich. IT. 12 Eynsham Cartl. (ed. Salter), p. 117. [1160- 6 Edward Marshall, Early History of Woodstock 80.] Manor (Oxford, 1873), p. 408. [XIII cen.] 13 Hundred Rolls, ii. 849a-b. 7 Edw. I. 488 Township Newington, South Newnham Murren Piddington Rollright Rousham Sandford Shipton Sibford Stratton Audley Tew, Great Wilcot APPENDIX II Description Grant of one virgate from the demesne, viz., in campo aquilonali to acres in 12 parcels in campo australi 1% acres in 11 parcels.! One holding comprises “‘ terra arabilis in communibus campis ibidem, viz., South field per estimationem lxv acre North field per estimationem Ixxxvi acre.”’? Grant inter alia of tithes from 2 acres of demesne mead- ow, “‘scil., quando occidentalis campus seminatur duas primas acras de prato quod dicitur West- mede, quando vero orientalis campus seminatur latitudinem duarum acrarum in prato quod dicitur Langdale.’’® Dower of Johanna, wife of Adam le Despencer, com- prises 3 of a messuage, a pond, and in campo boriali 80 acres of arable and in campo australi 60 acres of arable.‘ Grant of a messuage and g acres of demesne in one field and 9 acres in another.® Grant of one acre in the North field and one acre in the South field.® Grant to the Templars of a croft and 2 acres in campo versus orientem in 2 parcels and 2 acres in alio campo in 3 parcels.” Grant to Templars of 10 acres of demesne arable, viz., 5 acres in uno campo and 5 acres in alio.® Grant of 40 acres of demesne, scil., in uno campo 20 acres in 5 furlongs and in altero campo 20 acres.® “Adam Prat tenet 1 cottagium et ii acras terre in utroque campo.” Terrier of two virgates held by the Templars: in East field 24 acres in ro places in West field 24 acres in 13 places.!! 1 Harl. MS. 4028. [XVIII cen. copy of an early 6 Ibid., 363. 4 Edw. II. charter.]} 7 Bodl., Wood Donat. ro, f. 76. [Edw. I.] 2 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 388, f. 67. 6 Jas. I. 8 Ibid., f. 94. (Edw. I.] 3 Kennett, Parochial Antiquities, i. 103. 6-7 9 Kennett, Parochial Antiquities, i. 188. [29 Hen. I. Hen. IT.] 4'\Cosing: p. -Mort.,cEdw. 155F2'234(6) 234 10 Hundred Rolls, ii. 846a. 7 Edw. I. Edw. I. 1 Bodl., Wood Donat. 10, f. 386. [Edw. I.] 5 Turner and Coxe, Calendar of Charters, etc., p. 362. [c. 1200.] APPENDIX II 489 OXFORDSHIRE. GLEBE TERRIERS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY Township Alkerton Alvescot Ardley Astall Aston, Steeple Brize Norton Broughton Poggs Cottisford Duns Tew Fulbrook Glimpton Kencott 1 1647. 2 1685. 3 [Before 1679.] 4 1634. (Bodl., Oxfordshire Archdeaconry Papers) Description of the Glebe ‘* Lands and Layes on the South side 21, on the North side 19.””! Ina field called Barrell 43 acres in 5 parcels in a field called Woo-Lands 1 acre in 2 parcels. In the Upper Fields are 17 acres of ground, viz., oz acres in the East field in 18 parcels and 7% acres in the West field in 14 parcels.” Two yard-lands, viz., in West field 22 acres in g parcels in East field 26 acres, 8 butts, in 10 parcels.? In the East field 33 acres in 3 parcels in the West field 4 acres in 4 parcels.! In the lower field 12 acres in 5 parcels in the upper field 9 acres in 4 parcels.® In the grove field 36} acres, 5 lands, in 34 parcels in Ringborough field 47 acres, 4 lands, in 35 parcels.® Two yard-lands, viz., in the East field 31? acres in 31 parcels in the West field 37 acres in 30 parcels, with 2 crofts containing 4 acres.’ “The glebe land in Cottesford fielde lies for 4 yard lands divided into two fields: whereof one field, which lieth Eastward, containeth 39 acres, and the other field, which lieth Westward, containeth 21 Ares. Two yard-lands described in two (not very legible) columns, containing many parcels and headed ‘‘on the North side ” and “ on the South side.” 9 In the West field 33 acres in 25 parcels in the East field 303 acres in 20 parcels.! On the north side of the town in the common fields 273 acres, 7 lands, 1 butt, in 25 parcels on the south side of Glimpton in the common fields 14 acres, 3 lands, in g parcels on the upper side of Woodstocke way [also on the south] 16 acres, 9 lands, in 13 parcels. There are closes, viz., 5 acres of arable, 1 acre of meadow, 4 acres of pasture, 19 acres of heath.!! In the West field 353 acres in 21 parcels, and in the Hitching 7} acres, and in the ‘‘new broake ground” 14 acres to be sown with this field 5 1684. 8 Late XVII cen. Printed by J. C. Blomfield, § 1685. History of the Present Deanery of Bicester 7 1685. (8 pts., London, 1882-94), iii. 33. 9 1634. 10 1685. ll 1685. 490 Township Kencott (continued) Middleton Stony Shutford, West Stoke, South Tackley Westwell Township Aston and Cote Stoke, South Stoke Talmage APPENDIX II Description of the Glebe in the East field 32 acres in 24 parcels, and in the Hitching 9? acres to be sown with this field. In the South fields 32} acres and 14 lands in 31 parcels in the North field 29 acres and 14 lands in 30 parcels.? In the South field 46 acres in 18 parcels in the North field 46 acres in 27 parcels, with one other parcel of 20 acres.’ In the little North field 33 acres in 5 parcels, in the great North field 13} acres in 28 parcels in the great South field 11} acres in 23 parcels. The total constitutes two yard-lands.‘ In the South field 21 acres in 11 parcels in the North field 20 acres in 11 parcels. There are closes of arable containing 63 acres.5 In the East field 44 acres in 22 parcels (one of them containing 9 acres) in the West field 37 acres in 22 parcels.® OXFORDSHIRE. 'THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Description “There are ... several Leyes of greensward lying in the common fields, two years mowed and the other fed [the fields being Holliwell field, Windmill field, and Kingsway field.]” 7 Extent of the demesne arable in three fields, ‘‘ unde duo seminantur annuatim, tertius vero iacet warec- tus,” viz., in campo australi 126 acres in campo medio 73% acres in campo aquilonari 643 acres. Grant to the Templars of one-half hide of demesne arable, viz., in campo aquilonari 15 acres in 3 places in campo australi 15 acres in 5 places in campo occidentali qui vocatur chelfelde 15 acres in 14 places.® Tew, Great Grant of 7 acres, viz., 1? acres in the North field in 4 parcels 1? acres in the West field in 4 parcels 3 acres in the South field in 8 parcels 3 acre in the mede in the East field.” Thomley Grant of 5 acres, 1 butt, and { of a meadow. The ara- ble comprises 1 1634. 3 1634. 5 1634. j 8 Eynsham Carll. (ed. Salter), ii. 118-128. 2 1679. 4 1685. 6 1601. 1366. 7 J. A. Giles, History PP. 3,7. 1657. of Bampton, Supplement, 9 Bodl., Wood Donat. to, f. 53. [Edw. L.] 10 Bodl., Rawl. B 408, f. 165. [XV cen. copy.] APPENDIX II 491 Township Description Thomley (continued) in the furlongs Bremor Gorstilond and Harsaeforlong 2 acres in 3 parcels in alio campo 2% acres in 4 parcels in alio campo toward Wormehale 3 acre and in Short- lond 1 butt.1 Bampton Extent. “ Sunt ibidem tres carucate terre continentes in se cxcvi acras unde due partes possunt quolibet anno seminari... et tertia pars nihil valet quia iacet ad warectam et in communi.” 2 Finmere Extent. “In dominico sunt cc acre terre arrabilis unde due partes possunt seminari.’’ 4 Kidlington ; Extent. ‘‘Sunt duo carucate terre in dominico que continent cxlvi acre terre quarum due partes omni- modis annis seminari possunt et tertia pars iacet ad warectam et in campo communi ita quod nihil inde percipi potest.”’ 4 Marston ““ Est quedam terra in campo de Merston ultra domini- cum que... semper in tertio anno nichil reddit quia lacet warecta.”’ 5 OXFORDSHIRE. GLEBE TERRIERS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY (Bodl., Oxfordshire Archdeaconry Papers) Township Description of the Glebe Bladon Two yard-lands, viz., in Church field 6 acres and 1o lands in 16 parcels in the Down field 21 lands in 1g parcels in Burley field 27 lands, 2 acres, 2 butts, in 25 parcels.® Bourton, Black In West Brook field next Alvescott 2} acres in 5 parcels in the Downe field next Bourton 33 acres in 6 parcels in the Downe field next Norton 53 acres in 8 parcels.’ Britwell Salome In the West field 18 acres in 10 parcels in the Hill field 6 acres in 6 parcels in the East field 6 acres in 6 parcels.8 Chinnor In West Pond field 4 acres in 3 parcels in Great Winnoll field 1 acre, 1 land, in 2 parcels in Chinnor field 2 lands in 2 parcels.° Culham In Ham field 4? acres in ro parcels in Middle field 6} acres in 13 parcels in Cositer field 6 acres in 11 parcels.” Cuxham In the South field ro acres in 13 parcels (“‘ two of these acres are now tilled with the West field ’’) 1 Cartl. St. Frideswide (ed. Wigram), ii. 158. 4 Ibid., F. 5x (3). rz Edw. III. [c. 1210-20.] 5 Hundred Rolls, ii. 7116. 7 Edw. t. 2 Giles, History of Bampton, p.138. 36 Edw. III. 6 [c. 1685.] 8 1635. 0 1685. 3 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 56 (1). 12 7 1634. 9 1635. Edw. III. 492 Township Cuxham (continued) Finmere Handborough Hardwick Heath Lewknor Newton Purcell Waterstock Wendlebury Weston, South APPENDIX II Description of the Glebe in the West field 9 acres in 7 parcels in the North field 9} acres in 7 parcels.! In South field 22 lands, 3 butts, 3 leys, in 27 parcels in Mill field 25 lands, 4 butts, 6 leys, in 35 parcels in the field next Fullwell 20 lands, 3 butts, 3 leys, 2 yards, 2 “ foreshorters,”’ in 30 parcels.” In the Church field 12 acres in 12 parcels in the Mill field 15 acres in 24 parcels in the South field 12 acres in 15 parcels. Also three closes of 7 acres and 10 acres of meadow. In the Heeth field 14 lands, 4 ‘‘ heads,” in 3 parcels in the Mill field 20 lands in 7 parcels in Tinkers field 13 lands in 4 parcels.* [In the first field] 9 lands, 1 acre, ft butt, in 6 parcels in the second field 7 lands, 1 acre, 1 butt, 1 yard, in 10 parcels in the third field rx lands, 3 acres, x butt, 2 yards, in 12 parcels.§ In the field next to Aston 5 acres, 4 lands, 10 yards, 2 butts, in 16 parcels in the field next Shuerborn 5 acres, 12 lands, 1 yard, in 14 parcels in the middle field 8 acres, 5 lands, 5 yards, in 10 parcels.® In the field toward Finmere (North field), 5 acres, 1 yard, in 6 parcels in the field butting upon broadmeadow (South field) 7 acres, 1 yard, 2 lands, 2 butts, in 11 parcels in the field adjoining Willoston lordship (West field) 7 acres, 4 yards, 2 lands, in ro parcels.” In Conygere field (South field) 53 acres in 8 parcels in Gravewaye field (East field) 33 acres in 5 parcels in Ham field (North field) 2} acres in 4 parcels.’ In the field toward Bisseter 17 lands, 3 butts, in 19 parcels in the field toward Charleton 12 lands in 12 parcels in the field toward Weston rs lands, 3 yards, 1 ley, in 13 parcels.® In Cope field 8 acres in 10 parcels in Stonie field 62 acres in 7 parcels, and 2 butts of grass ground in Moshill field 17} acres in 15 parcels, and 1 acre of grass ground.” Whitchurch In the Parke field 403 acres in 23 parcels in the West field 3{ acres in 3 parcels 1 1634. 3 (Early XVII cen.] 5 [c. 1601.] 7 1634. 9 1679. 2 1634. 4 1601. 6 1704. 8 1601. 10 1635. APPENDIX II 493 Township Description of the Glebe Whitchurch (continued) in the East field 33% acres in 20 parcels in the Moore End field 16 acres in 13 parcels in Bozden field 10} acres in 14 parcels. These fields were probably grouped as three.! Wooton In the North field 25 acres in 8 parcels and probably 112 acres of meadow at Greene Hitch 23 acres in 13 parcels in the West field 19 acres in 17 parcels with 1 ley.? OXFORDSHIRE. TOWNSHIPS DIVIDED INTO “ QUARTERS,” USUALLY FouR (Bodl., Oxfordshire Archdeaconry Papers) Adderbury, West In the Flags quarter 3 acres, 1 land, in 4 parcels in Poinfurlong quarter 4 acres, 3 yards, in 4 parcels in Berryll quarter 2 acres in 1 parcel E in Langland quarter 6 acres in 4 parcels.’ Hanwell In Debtcombe quarter 7 lands, 2 butts, 2 leas, 3 pikes, 1 yard, in 14 parcels in the Westfield quarter 6 lands, 2 butts, 5 leas, 1 headacre, 4 piece greensward, in 8 parcels in Lotrum quarter 8 lands, 4 butts, 3 yards, 1 head- acre, 1 ‘‘hade,” in 16 parcels in Pit-Acre quarter 7 lands, 2 butts, 3 leas, 1 “‘ hade,”’ in 11 parcels.* Heyford, Upper In the field adjoining Nether Heyford and Calcott (Dean field in 1685) 21 ridges in another field called Stanhill 20 ridges in Lobdane-tree field (Elmn field in 1685) 22 ridges in the field between the ways called Somerton way and above Oxford way 17 ridges in the lower field 11 ridges.® Kingham In the Ryeworth quarter 4 acres, 52 ridges (1 ridge usually equals 4 acre), in g parcels in Wythcombe quarter 4 acres, 27 ridges, 24 butts, in 11 parcels in Broadmore quarter 2 acres, 59 ridges, 11 butts, in 8 parcels in Brookside or Adbridge quarter 4 acres, 7 ridges, 10 butts, in 6 parcels in Townehill quarter ‘‘every yeares land,” 2 acres, 6 ridges, and Rye close, in 4 parcels.® Somerton In the wheat field lying toward Frittwell moor, 3 acres, 8 lands, 8 butts, in 10 parcels in the second field butting on the south side Ardley way, 7 acres, 7 lands, 4 butts, in 13 parcels 1 1635. 31722. 5 1679. Printed by Blomfield, Bicester, vi [pt. ii],59-60. 2 1601. 4 1680. 6 1685. 494 Township Somerton (continued) APPENDIX II Description of the Glebe in the third field adjoining the way leading to Bister, 7 acres, 16 lands, 3 butts, in 12 parcels in the fourth field lying on the south side Bister way, 5 acres, ro lands, 4 butts, in 12 parcels. Standlake In Standlake Little field 6 acres in 8 parcels in the Richland field 8 acres in 16 parcels in the North field 9 acres in 19 parcels in the South field 6 acres in 12 parcels.? Tadmarton In Blackland quarter 1 acre, 9 lands, 1 lea, in 11 parcels in Fulling mill quarter 3} acres, 7 lands, 4 leas, 3 butts, in 17 parcels in Leabrouch quarter to acres, 2 lands, 2 leas, in 14 parcels in Rattnill quarter 4} acres, 6 lands, 1 lea, 2 butts, in 14 parcels, and 9 “lottes”’ of furzes in the heath.’ Wigginton In Milcome quarter 2 acres, 4 lands, in 6 parcels in Petsbush quarter 14 lands in 14 parcels in Midnill quarter 5 lands, 3 yards, 1 butt, in 8 par- cels, and 13 leys or other parcels of grass ground in South quarter 7 lands, 2 yards in 7 parcels.‘ RUTLAND. THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Township Description Essendine Extent. “‘ Sunt ibidem cl acre terre arabilis in domin- ico unde possunt seminari per annum ¢ acre. ... Et residuum iacebit ad warectam et tunc nihil valet quia in communi.” ® Tinwell Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises in “ campus qui dicitur Estfeld [5] pecie ” in ‘ Middilfeld [8] pecie ” in ‘ campus qui dicitur Westfeld [13] pecie ” in “ campus qui dicitur Inglethorpfeld [2] pecie.” ® Whissendine Extent of the demesne arable, ‘‘ de quibus due partes possunt seminari per annum ... et warrecta inde nihil valet per annum quia tunc est communis omnibus tenentibus.” 7 SOMERSET. TWwoO-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Baltonsborough Extent of the demesne, of which 131 acres lie in campo occidentali and 88 acres lie in campo orientali.8 1 1634. 2 1685. 3 1676. 4 1685. 7 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 46 (31). 10 5 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 37 (22). 8 Edw. III. Edw. III. 8 Rent. el Cust. Monast. Glastoniae, Somerset 6 Cott. MS., Nero C VII, f.. 150. 1 Hen. IV. Rec. Soc., [Publ.], 1891, v. 195. [1252-61.] Township Barwick Bath Easton “ Berewe ”’ Bratton St. Maur Camel “‘ Rumare ”’ Cameley Charlton Musgrove Coleford Compton Curry Rivell English Combe APPENDIX II 495 Description Grant of 7 acres from one-third of a virgate, viz., 33 acres in campo versus orientem and 3} acres im campo versus occidentem.' Grant of a grove and 163 acres of arable, viz., 84 acres in the East field in 4 parcels 7% acres in the West field in 9 parcels.” Grant. ‘ De illa dimidia virgata terre que remanet... jacent decem acre in Sudfeld et octo acre in Nordfeld.” ® Grant of a messuage and 603 acres of land in the West field and 59 acres of land in the East field.4 Grant of two messuages, two crofts, 23 acres of meadow, and 27 acres in 20 parcels in the North field and 25 acres in 19 parcels in the South field.® Confirmation of a grant of a messuage, 2 acres of meadow, and 6 acres of arable in one field and 6 acres in the other field.® Grant of 3 acres of meadow and 18 acres of arable, viz., ro acres in 10 parcels in the North field and 8 acres in 7 parcels in the South field.’ Grant inter alia of two mills ‘‘ cum omnibus perti- nentibus suis, scil., “cum sex acris terre iacentibus in campo orientali et sex acris terre iacentibus in campo occiden- eal Grant of a messuage, a grove, a meadow, and “‘ quinque acras terre in campo qui dicitur Suthfeld [in 4 parcels] et quinque acras terre in campo qui dicitur Estfeld [in 4 parcels].”’ 9 Grant of a rent of 35. paid for g acres of arable, viz., in the West field 5 acres and in the East field 4 acres.'° Grant of 4 acres of arable, whereof 2 acres are in the East field and 2 acres are in the West field. 1 Ped. Fin., 196-3-23. 3 Hen. III. 7 Cartl. Bruton Priory, ibid., 1894, vill. 44. 2 Chartl. Bath Priory, Somerset Rec. Soc., [Pubi.], {1256-67.] 1893, vii. 82. [1295-1300.] 8 Ped. Fin., 196-4-89. 18 Hen. III. 3 Ped. Fin., 196-2-63. 5 John. 9 Tbid., 196-3-71. 10 Hen. III. 4 Cartl. Bruton Priory, Somerset Rec. Soc., [Pudl.], 10 Cartl. Muchelney Abbey, Somerset Rec. 1894, Vill. 22. [Before 1232.] Soc., [Publ.], xiv.66. (Early XIII cen.] 5 Cartl. Muchelney Abbey, ibid., 1899, xiv. 68. [1240.] Chartl. Bath Priory, ibid., vii. 165. 15 6 Cartl. Buckland Priory, ibid., 1909, Xxv. 56. 1201. Edw. III. 496 Township Lovington Lyncombe Mells Somerton Swell Weston Wookey Hole Brompton Little Marston “ Huredcote ” ) Titon Lyng Sutton | APPENDIX II Descriplion Grant with the advowson of the church of one hide of land, viz., four score acres in one field and four score in the other. Grant of 2 acres in the lower field and 2 acres in the upper field.” Extent of the demesne, of which 219 acres lay in campo orientali and 209} acres lay in campo occidentali.3 Grant of 8 acres of arable, viz., in the East field 4 acres in 3 parcels and in the West field 4 acres in 1 parcel.‘ Grant of one-fourth of a virgate, viz., 73 acres in Babforlang and Crouforlang and 7% acres in the other field in 5 parcels.® Description of a virgate of land, of which 15 acres are in the South field in 7 parcels and 15 acres in the North field in 8 parcels.® Grant of houses, meadow, and 14 acres of arable land in one field and 13 acres in the other.’ SOMERSET. THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises in campo occidentali 49 acres sown with wheat in campo boriali 60 acres sown with spring corn in campo orientali 39 acres lying fallow.’ Transfer of a half-virgate, which comprises 18% acres, viz., in the East field 53 acres in the East [sic] field 7 acres in the South field 6 acres.® Extents of the manors of Athelney abbey. _ Relative to the demesne arable of each, “ due partes pos- sunt seminari per annum... et tertia pars iacet in communi et ad warectam et ideo nullius valoris.”’ 1° 1 Cal. MSS. of Dean and Chapter of Wells (Hist. 6 Chartl. Bath Priory, ibid., vii. 77. [Early MSS. Com., 1907), i. 41. n.d. XIV cen.] : 2 Chartl. Bath Priory, Somerset Rec. Soc., 7 Cal. MSS. of Dean and Chapter of Wells, i. [Publ.], vii. 77. ({1261-91.] 107. 1294. 3 Rent. et Cust. Monast. Glastoniae, ibid., v. 2109. 8 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 564. 16 Edw. III. ({1252-61.] ® Cartl. Muchelney Abbey, Somerset Rec. Soc., * Cartl. Muchelney Abbey, ibid., xiv. 66. [Before [Publ.], xiv. 71. 1241. 1282.] 10 Add. MS. 6065, ff. 9, 10. 23 Edw. I. 5 Cartl. Bruton Priory, ibid., viii. 40. [1206-23.] APPENDIX II 497 STAFFORDSHIRE. ‘THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Township Description Barton An extensive survey arranged by fields and devoting to Wheat field 17 folios, to Walkers field 26, to Rowghemedowe field 4, and to Arloo field 24.1 Bonehill Two terriers describe parcels in three common fields. John Warde, for example, has 22 selions in Marle- pit field, 6 in Uppal field, and 5 in Morowe field.” Bromley, Abbots The enclosure award allots, in addition to 818 acres of waste, 393 acres in Ley field, 40 in Hollywell field, and 17 in Mickledale field. Each of the three fields is surrounded by enclosures.’ Clayton Griffin Extent describing “in campo de Middulhulfeld et le Heygrene quat- uordecim acras terre regales... in campo inter villam Novi Castri et villam de Clay- ton undecim acras terre... in campo de Fullwallefeld et assarto quondam domini de Clayton quatuordecim acras terre.” 4 Hilderston Transfer of a messuage and a half-virgate, scil., “tres acras et dimidiam que iacent in campo de Holewei ... et tres acras et dimidiam in campo de Blakedone ... et tres acras in campo de Whecolnelfeld... .”’ ® Leek Transfer of a messuage and 12 acres of demesne arable: in campo occidentali 21 selions in 3 parcels in campo aquilonali 18 selions in 3 parcels in campo orientali 15 selions in 3 parcels.® Trysull and Siesdon The enclosure award and map show three non-adjacent fields, each containing many parcels. The total area re-allotted comprises 523 acres in Whitney field, 28 acres in Newlunt field, and 20% acres in Budbrooke field.’ Tutbury A survey showing three fields, Castelhay, Mill, and Middle, but they are not large and their tenants are few.® “ Berkeswych ” Extents of the manors of the bishop of Coventry and Brewood Lichfield. | Relative to the arable of each, “de Heywood tertia parte nihil potuit levari quia iacebat frisca Draycott, Derbyshire et inculta et in communibus campis ad warectam.”’® 1 D. of Lanc., M. B. 110. [x Eliz.] 6 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XXVI, f. 466. [XIV 2 Land Rev., M. B. 185, f. 66. 21 Eliz. cen. copy.] 3 C. P. Recov. Ro., 39 Geo. III, Trin. 1700. 7 C. P. Recov. Ro., 20 Geo. III, Easter. 4 Chartl. Priory of Trentham, Wm. Salt Archaeol. 1780. Soc., Colls., 1890, xi. 328. 34 Edw. I. 8 D. of Lanc., M. B. 100, ff. 35-426. 1 Eliz. 5 Ped. Fin., 208-4-47. 21 Hen. III. 9 Add. MS. 6165, ff. 97-104. 31 Edw. III. 498 Township Bradley Essington Madeley Mere End Norbury Swinnerton Amberley Broadwater Alciston Angmering Atherington Eartham 1 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 51 (7). 11 Edw. III. APPENDIX II Description Extent of the demesne arable, of which “ tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi.” ! Two and one-half virgates are valued at only half a mark because the soil is sandy, and “ tertia pars eiusdem terre quolibet anno iacet ad warectam et in communi.” ? Extent. ‘Sunt ibidem ciiii** acre terre arabilis de quibus cxx seminantur quolibet anno ... et lx acre nihil valent per annum quia iacent quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi.” Extent of a carucate of arable, of which “ tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi.” 4 Extent of a carucate of arable, of which “ tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in communi.” 5 Extent of three carucates of arable, of which “ tertia pars iacet quolibet anno ad warectam et in com- muni.”’ ® Sussex. Two-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Extent of 176 acres of demesne arable, of which 53 are sown with wheat, 24 with barley, 10 with beans, peas, and vetches, 5 with oats. “ Et valet acra per annum si debet dimitti ad firmam iiii d. et non plus quia iacent in communi... .”7 The enclosure plan shows, apart from many old en- closures, two open common fields called North and South.8 SuSSEX. THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Terrier of the manor showing the parcels of the holdings divided between Westleyne, Middleleyne, and Eastleyne.° The enclosure plan shows three compact open arable fields named West, Middle, and East.!° A reproduction of the plan of 1606 shows one-third of the manor still in three open fields named West, Mead, and Mill.!! The enclosure award and plan show six large open arable fields with areas as follows: North field 80 7 Add. MS. 6165, f. 1096. 11 Rich. II. 8 C. P. Recov. Ro., 51 Geo. III, Hil. 18zo0. an » wo Ibid., F. 61 (18). Ibid., F. 51 (7). Ibid., F. 54 (9). Ibid., F. 66 (25). Ibid., F. 54 (8). 14 Edw. III. 9 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 56, ff. 246-248. 11 11 Edw. III. Hen. VI. 12 Edw. III. 10 C. P. Recov. Ro., 52 Geo. III, Trin. 1809. 16 Edw. III. 11 Sussex Archaeol. Colls., 1901, xliv. 147. 12 Edw. III. - 1606. Township Eartham (continued) Nutbourne Ovingdean Prinsted Worthing Heighton Rackham Chapel Ascote Church Over Compton Eatington APPENDIX II 499 Description acres, Middle field 93, Church field 92, Hodge Lee field 82, Mill field 102, Boar’s Hill field 46.1 The enclosure plan shows three common fields called Weston, Mill Pond, and Hat Coppice.? Terrier of the lands of the prior of Lewes, who has this year arable to be sown “ in qualibet leyna, viz., in le Northleyne cum frumento ... xxv acras | in le Sowthleyne cum ordeo ... xxxi acras ... be Estoune terra frista ... xxix acras... ” and in four other places 8 acres.’ A complete and detailed terrier of the township. The open-field arable of each tenant is divided equally among three groups of fields, viz.: Eastope, the Steane, and Langlands (“ this Laine’); Moggland fields; Southerdeane and Plumer (“‘ this Laine ’’).4 The enclosure plan shows three large open-field areas, East field, Home and Middle fields, and West field.® Extent of 60 acres of demesne arable, “‘de quibus semi- nabantur hoc anno ... xl acre et residuum iacet ad warectam et in communi.” ® Extent of 160 acres of demesne arable, of which 50 are sown with wheat, 20 with barley, 16 with oats, 20 with peas and vetches. “ Et valet acra per annum iiii d. et non plus quia iacent in communi.” 7 WARWICKSHIRE. TWO-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Grant of 6 acres in the field, of which “tres sunt in parte [defaced] ... campi et tres alie in illa parte campi qui est inter Astanes- cote et hodenhulle. ...” 8 Transfer of demesne arable ‘ alio campo, scil., in aquilonali parte [52 acres in ro parcels] in australi vero campo [44 acres in 8 parcels].”’ Transfer of 2 messuages, with 28 acres of arable in campo aquilonali and 26 in campo australi.” Transfer of a croft, with a “ culturam... in uno campo . et culturam ... in alio campo.” ‘in uno campo... et in 1 C. P. Recov. Ro., 57 Geo. III, Trin. 1817. 7 Add. MS. 6165, f. r10. 11 Rich. II. 2 K. B. Plea Ro., 3-4 Geo. IV, Hil. 1818. 8 Cott. MS., Vitel. D XVIII, f. 71 [XIII 3 Cott. MS., Vesp. F XV. 23 Hen. VI. cen.] 4 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 3/57. 1640. 9 Cott. MS., Vitel. A I, f. 112 [XIII cen.] 5 C. P. Recov. Ro., 51 Geo. III, Hil. 1810. 10 Ped. Fin., 242-5-28. 4 John. 6 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 56 (1). 12 Edw. III. Harl. MS. 4028. [31-44 Hen. III.] 500 Township Harbury Hodnel Kenilworth Ladbroke Long Lawford Radburn Tysoe Westcote Binley Long Lawford APPENDIX II Description Transfer of a messuage and a half-virgate, scil., in campo versus Warewich 4 acres in 12 parcels in campo versus [Laldbr[oke] 3} acres in 9 parcels. Transfer of 4 acres in uno campo in 8 parcels and 4 acres in alio campo in 8 parcels.? Transfer of a toft and 9} acres of arable, viz., 5t acres in various furlongs in 18 parcels and 4} acres in alio campo similarly subdivided.’ Transfer of 15 acres of demesne arable, viz., 74 in una parte campi in 3 parcels 73 in altera parte campi in 3 parcels.* Retention from a virgate of 4 acres, scil., “duas in uno campo et duas in alio.” Retention from a virgate of 4 actes, scil., *duas in una parte campi et duas in altera.”’ ® Transfer of 17 acres of arable, scil., 3 in uno campo et 8} in altero. Several other charters make a similar division.® Transfer of two virgates of demesne, each formerly held by a tenant who had “unam dimidiam virgatam in uno campo et unam dimidiam virgatam in alio campo.” 7 Transfer of ‘‘ sex acras in campo versus Tysho et sex in campo versus Radeweye.” ® WARWICKSHIRE. ‘THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Transfer of 9 selions of arable im campo occidentali in 5 places 17 selions of arable in campo australi in 3 places and 17 selions of arable im campo aquilonali in 4 places.? Grant of 49 acres of arable, viz., in orientali campo 193 acres in 19 parcels in campo occidentali 15 acres in 15 parcels in campo meridiano 14% acres in 10 parcels.'® Weston under Wetherley The enclosure award and plan show six fields approxi- Willenhall mately equal and named Wind Mill Hill, Heeth, Cross of the Hand, Northalls, Carr, and Pinwell."! A rental stating that the virgate, the half-virgate, and the quarter-virgate of three tenants lie “ in tribus campis.”’ ? 1 Cott. MS., Vitel. D XVIII, f. 815. [XIII 6 Cott. MS., Vitel. AI, f. 1235. [XV cen. copy.] cen.] 7 Cott. MS., Vesp. E XXIV, f. 3b. [Edw. I.] 2 Tbid., f. 74. [XIII cen.] 8 Ped. Fin., 242-6-60. 4 John. 3 Stone MS. 937, f. 106. [XIII cen.] 9 Cott. MS., Vitel. AI, f. 465. [XV cen. copy.] 4 Cott. MS., Vitel. AI, f.135. [XV cen. copy.] 1 Cott. MS., Calig. A XIII, f. 1365. [XIV cen.] 5 Cott. MS., Calig. A XIII, ff. 1356, 149. uC. P. Recov. Ro., 20 Geo. III, Easter. 1780. [XIII cen.] 1 Lansdowne MS. 400, ff. 41, 415. 12 Hen. IV. Township Axford Badbury Damerham, South Grittleton Kington Nettleton Winterbourne Berwick [St. James] Marden Overton, West Sherston Stanton [St. Quenton] Swallowcliff Warminster Winterbourne Yatesbury 1C. R. Straton, Pembroke Lands, i. 163-167. 9 Eliz. 2 Harl. MS. 3961. 10 Hen. VIII. 3 Ina. p. Mort., quoted by R. C. Hoare, Modern Wiltshire, ii. 25. 42 Hen. III. 4 Ped. Fin., 250-2-7. 3 John. 5 Straton, Pembroke Lands, i. 143-145. 9 Eliz. APPENDIX II 5OI WILTSHIRE. TWO-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Description Survey of the township showing the tenants’ arable divided between North field and South field.1 Surveys of Glastonbury manors (cf. Appendix I). In each case the holdings of the customary tenants are divided between two fields, named respectively East and West, East and West, North and West, East and West, North and South, East and West.” Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises im campo versus Austrum gg acres and in campo Bortali 96 acres.* Transfer of demesne arable, scil., “in campo orientali viginti acre et in campo occidentali viginti acre.’’ 4 Survey of the township, showing tenants’ arable divided between South field and West field.5 Transfer of a virgate, scil., 2I acres im uno campo and 21 in alio campo.® Survey of the township, showing the tenants’ arable divided between North field and South field, though a small East field also appears.’ Confirmation to the church of 6 acres “in utroque campo.” 8 : Grant of a half-virgate, the arable of which comprises “septem acras in campo inter Wermenstre et Bis- sopestre et septem acras in campo inter Upton et Wer- menstre.’’ 9 Transfer of 80 acres in una parte ville and 82 acres in altera parte ville. Transfer of 70 acres of arable, except a croft and “‘ex- ceptis xv acris terre in uno campo et in alio campo xi agKisterkew.y/277 1% 8 Reg. Malmesburiense (Rolls Series), ii. 26. [1205-22.] 7 Straton, Pembroke Lands, i. 132-136. 9 Eliz. 8 Reg. Sarisberiense (Rolls Series), i. 342. [XIII cen. copy.] 9 Ped. Fin., 250-4-1. 2 Hen. III. 1%© Anc. Deeds, A 244. [XIII cen.] 1 Ped. Fin., 250-3-16. 7 John. 502 APPENDIX II WILTSHIRE. Two-FIELD TowNsuips — Cont. Township Description Extents of the estates of Malmesbury abbey. Of the Srkenoran demesne arable in each case ‘ medietas potest Newnton , i quolibet anno seminari ... et alia medietas nihil Cowiold ith. Norton valet quia iacet in communi et ad warectam.” ! Heytesbury, East Extent. “Sunt ibidem cccclx acre terre arabilis de quibus possunt seminari per annum cclx ... et quum non seminantur nihil valent quia iacent in communi.” 2 Heytesbury, Great Extent. ‘‘ Sunt in dominico cccc acre terre arabilis . . . et quum non seminantur nihil valent quia iacent in communi de quibus possunt seminari cc acre.’’ 3 Colerne Extent of 100 acres of demesne arable, the phraseology being the same as the preceding.4 Hurdcott Extent. ‘“‘ Sunt in dominico clx acre terre arabilis de quibus possunt seminari per annum iiii** ... et quum non seminantur nihil valent quia iacent in communi.”’® Maddington Extent of 100 acres of arable, ‘de quibus possunt semi- nari per annum | acre et quum non seminantur nihil valent quia iacent in communi.® Sherston Extent. “ Sunt ibidem in dominico De acre terre ara- bilis de quibus possunt seminari per annum ccc acre .., et quando iacent ad warectam nihil valent quia iacent in communi.” 7 WILTSHIRE. THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Aldbourne The enclosure award and plan show six open arable fields named South, Windmill, Rooksbury, West, North, and East.8 Manors of the Earl of | Surveys of townships showing the arable of the tenants’ Pembroke, for the holdings divided among three fields, as follows: most part near Wilton Alvediston, South, Middle, and Home fields; “ Aven,” South, Middle, and North fields; Broad Chalke, East, Middle, and West fields; Burcombe, East, West, and Wood fields; Chilhampton, North, West, and South fields; Dichampton, North, Middle, and South fields; Dinton, West, Middle, and East fields; East Overton, North, East, and South fields; Fuggleston, East, West, and North fields; Newton Toney, Woodburghe, Bush, and 1 Add. MS. 616s, ff. 57-59. 19 Rich. II. 5 Ibid., F. 56 (1). 12 Edw. III. 2 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. II, F. 56 (1). 12 6 Ibid., F. 62 (6). 14 Edw. III. Edw. III. 7 Ibid., F. 65 (3). 15 Edw. III. 3 Ibid., F, 63 (12). 14 Edw. III. 8 C. P. Recov. Ro., 53 Geo. III, Trin. 1809. 4 Ibid. APPENDIX II 503 Township Description Manors of the Earle of Hoome fields; North Ugford, North, Middle, and Pembroke (continued) West fields; Quidhampton, East, Middle, and West fields; South Newton, South, Middle, and North fields; Stoford, East, Middle, and West fields (plan in ii. 542); Washerne, East, Middle, and West fields; Wylye, East, Middle, and West fields. Steeple Ashton and tith-__ Brief survey, often showing that the townships lay in ings, Hinton, South- three common arable fields.” wick, Semington, North Ashton, North Bradley Bremhill and Foxham Charlton Crudwell “ Kemele ” Purton Sutton Castle Combe Durrington Sharncott Broadway Hampton Hill Walcot Extents of the manors of Malmesbury abbey. Of the demesne arable in each instance “‘ due partes pos- sunt quolibet anno seminari ... et tertia pars nihil valet quia iacet ad warectam et in communi.” # Extent of ‘‘ due carucate terre arabilis quarum ... tertia pars per annum nihil valet quia iacet ad warectam et in communi.” 4 Extent of the demesne arable, ‘“‘quarum due partes pos- sunt seminari per annum ... et tertia pars quum non seminatur nihil valet quia iacet in com- muni.” ® Extent of the demesne arable, ‘‘ de quibus due partes possunt seminari per annum... Et tertia pars que non seminatur nihil valet quia iacet in communi.” ® WORCESTERSHIRE. ‘TWO-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Transfer of a messuage and 23 acres of arable in uno campo and 23 in alio campo." Transfer of a messuage and 30 acres in the fields, Grant of 6 acres of arable from half a virgate, scil., im uno campo 3 acres in 5 parcels in alio campo 3 acres in 5 parcels.9 Transfer of a half-virgate in duobus campis, scil., in campo iuxta Ellesbergam 13 acres in 13 parcels in alio campo 13 acres in 10 parcels.° 1 Straton, Pembroke Lands, vol.i. 9 Eliz. 7 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 61, f. 156. [XIV cen. 2 Land Rev., M. B. ro1, ff. 145-158. copy.] 3 Add. MS. 616s, ff. 57-59. 19 Rich. II. 8 Cott. MS., Vesp. B XXIV, f. 5. [XIII cen.] 4 Add. MS. 28206. 46 Edw. III. 9 Ped. Fin., 258-3-47. 11 Hen. III. 5 C. Inq. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 40 (10). 8 10 Exch. Aug. Of., M. B. 61, f. 930. [XIV cen. Edw. III. 6 Tbid., F. 39 (6). copy.] 8 Edw. III. 504 APPENDIX II WORCESTERSHIRE. THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Township Huddington Shurnock Manors of the bishop of Worcester, viz., North Wick, Wick Episcopi, Kempsey, Ripple, Bre- don, Fladbury, Block- ley, Tredington, Ham- bury, Alvechurch, As- ton Episcopi, Knight- wick. Description At the end of a survey are described three small, non- adjacent arable common fields, viz., Shatherlong field containing 36 acres, Badney or Windmill field containing 20 acres, and Hill field containing 30 acres.! Transfer of a half-virgate of arable, scil., “ illam medie- tatem que ubique iacet in campis de Suthecot, Hul- feld, et Denefeld versus umbram.” ? Extents valuing two-thirds of the demesne arable in each instance, but stating that “ tertia pars nihil [valet] quia ad warectam et in communi.” 3 YORKSHIRE. TWO-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Ainderby Castley Coniston Kilnsey Marton Memorandum of the lands of Malton priory. ‘ Item in Aymunderby in campo occidentali iii bovate in campo orientali viii bovate.” 4 ““Thabbot of Fontaunce hath in ye felde of Casteley xii acres of land of the which ”’ 3 acres lie in the South field in 4 parcels and 8 acres lie in the North field in 11 parcels. Transfer of 15% acres, viz., in campo de Conyngston versus le North 103% acres in 5 places in campo versus le Suth 5} acres in one place.® Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises in campo orientali 102 acres and im campo occidentali 111} acres.” Transfer of 40 acres of arable, “‘viginti, scilicet, ex una parte ville et viginti ex alia.” Transfer of “ ilii acre ex una parte ville versus boream in Fourtenerode et quatuor ex illa parte versus meridiem [in 3 par- cels].”’ 8 1 Exch. Aug. Of., Parl. Survs., Worcs. 6. 1650. 5 Add. MS. 18276, f. 366. 1468. 2 Ped. Fin., 258—-5-3. 21 Hen. III. 6 Ibid., f. 39. 15009. 3 Add. MS. 6165, ff. 81-83. 38 Edw. III. 7 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 17/4. Edw. III. 4 Cott. MS., Claud. D XI, f. 279. [XIV cen. 8 Cartl. Prior. de Gyseburne (Surtees Soc., 1891), copy.] ii.g. (Early XIII cen.] Township Marton Owthorn Richmond Skeckling Thoralby Walkington Ganstead Hunmanby Austerfield Bainton Baldersby 1 Egerton MS. 2823. 2 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 17/4. Edw. III. 3 Tbid. 4 Ibid. 5 Cott. MS., Claud. D XI, f. 1845. [XIV cen. copy.] APPENDIX II 505 Description Transfer of a toft and 20 acres of arable, scil., * decem ex una parte ville et ex alia parte ville decem... .”} Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises in campo ex parte boriali dicte ville 61% acres in campo versus austrum 95 acres, 10 perches.? - Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises in campo occidentali per 167% acres in campo orientali per 145% acres. Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises in campo orientali 67% acres in campo occidentali 70} acres in duabus culturis de forland quod dicitur Gildcrosse- wages 10% acres.* Transfer of 40 acres of arable, viz., 36 in septentrionali parte ville and 4 in australi.5 One holding of two oxgangs comprises 15 acres of arable in the South field and 15 acres of arable in the North field.® Extent of the demesne arable, “ de quibus medietas quolibet anno iacet in warecto et in communi.” 7 Extent of the demesne arable. ‘‘ Et qualibet bo- vata continet xvi acre terre unde possunt seminari quolibet anno ... viii acre... et residuum quod iacet in warecto nihil valet per annum pro eo quod iacet in communi.” ® YORKSHIRE. THREE-FIELD TOWNSHIPS Terriers of five leaseholds which, apart from small en- closures, divide their arable almost equally between West field, Riddinge field, and Lowe field (e.g., 6%, 7, 6% acres).° A survey in which the holdings, apart from the mes- suages and small closes, are described as “ arrable in the 3 feilds.” ” “ Mensuratio campi de Balderby. Summa pcxxvi acre.” The rubrics in the margin (perhaps of the fifteenth century) are Campus borialis, Suth Cam- pus, and West Campus; but the South field is not 6 Land Rev., M. B. 2209, f. 192. 1608. 7 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 40 (7). 8 Edw. III. 8 Ibid., F. 44 (1). 9 Edw. III. 9 Land Rev., M. B. 220, ff. 180-185. 1608. 10 Tbid., ff. 159-162. 1608. [XV cen. copy.] 506 Township Baldersby (continued) Barwick [in Elmet] Burstwick Catterton Darrington Deighton, North Frickley Houghton cum Castle- forth Hutton, Sheriff Kippax 1 2 3 4 Cott. MS., Tib. C XII, f. 193. Exch. Treas. Recpt., M. B. 176. Rents. & Survs., Portf. 17/4. Cott. MS., Vesp. A IV, f. 188. 5 Pedes Finium Ebor. reg. Johanne (Surtees Soc., 1894), p. 136. 1208. APPENDIX II Description great in extent, and in all three fields certain “ flats’ are sown with rye.! Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises 40 acres in campo orientali 48 in campo occidentali 50 in campo boriali and 4 in Scolesker. Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises 1304 acres in East field 116} in Middle field and 1573 in West field.* Terriers of three farmholds each divided among three fields. The second comprises in North field 15} acres in 6 places in the Tofte field 133 acres in 9 places in Gosbar’ field 10 acres in 5 places.4 Grant of 2} acres from a bovate: } acre in a croft, and “i acram in cultura de Nortfeld et dimidiam acram in cultura de Sudfeld et dimidiam acram in cultura de Westfeld.” ® Transfer of 2 acres, scil., 1 acre in North field and 1 in campo occidentali, with a cultura in campo orientali. At the end of the cartulary is a sixteenth-century terrier of the demesne arable, assigning to West field 113 acres, to South field 113 acres, to Ho- berkes 73 acres, to North field 2 acres, and to Oxenclosse 8 acres.® Terrier of 3 messuages, 2 crofts, 3 doles of meadow, 6 acres of enclosed arable, and in the Mylne field ro acres in 9 parcels in the Clough field 7} acres in 12 parcels in the Kyrke field 7 acres in g parcels.’ A survey showing the arable acres of the tenants’ hold- ings pretty evenly divided among Kirk field, High (or Meare) field, and Park (or West) field, (€.8., 30, 40, 40; 5, 5, 6; 16, 16, 20, etc.).8 A survey showing the arable acres of the tenants’ hold- ings equally divided among Dudhill field, Dyce- gate and Reddinge, and West field (e.g., 12, 12, 12).° Extent of the demesne arable, which comprises 23 acres in the South field, 22 in the North field, and 22 in the West field.” 1206. 6 Cott. MS., Vesp. AIV, ff. 63, 190. [1285.]- 15 Edw. III. 7 Rents. & Survs., Portf. 22/41. 5 Hen. VI. Edw. III. 8 Land Rev., M. B. 2209, ff. 27-38. 1608. [XVI cen.] 9 Land Rev., M. B. 193, f. 476. 5 Jas. I. 10 Exch. Treas. Recpt., M. B. 176. 15 Edw. III. APPENDIX II 507 Township Description Kirby Grindalyth Map showing three large fields, viz., East field con- taining 277 acres, Middle field containing 316 acres, and West field with Garth End field containing 418 acres (265 + 153). Kirkby-Wiske Transfer of 4 selions in campo borientali in 3 parcels 4 selions in campo occidentali in 3 parcels 3 selions in campo australi in 3 parcels.? Lund Several leaseholds consist largely of arable, which is said to lie “ in ye three fields.” 3 Monkhill A tenant’s holding consists of a messuage, a close of 2 acre, 2 acres of meadow in the town “ Ings,” and 6 acres of arable in Kirk field, 7 in Middle field, and 7 in North field.4 Norton A valuation of the demesne arable, which is rubricated as follows: in Chapelcroft, East field, and Middle field 984 acres in South field in 8 flats, 98 acres in West field in 17 flats, 923 acres.® Nun Monketon “To the towne are belongynge thre fieldes ... the towne fielde ... the middel fielde ... the west fielde.”’ ® Pickering “ On each side of the brook lay a suite of common fields, three in number; ... each bovate on one side of the township contained 24 acres, on the other 12 acres.) 7 Rokeby and Smythorp Exchange of 66 acres of arable, ‘‘ que iacent in tribus campis de Rokeby et Smythorp,”’ viz., in Blacker field and Langland field 223 acres in Eskelflat field and Thornholm field 22} acres in More field and Tresholm field 224 acres.8 Skirpenbeck Of the 14 bovates which belong to Whitby abbey 6 are consolidated, but 8 lie ‘‘ in flattes in campo dicte ville quarum prima iacet in Northfeld super Wolfhow que continet Xxli acras terre ... in campo australi a flatt vocata Blaland flatt que continet xvi acras terre et dimidiam ... in campo occidentali... a flatt vocata Okflat ... que continet ii acras terre.” 9 Sneaton Transfer of 21 acres of arable, viz., in West field 93 acres in 6 places 1 Add. MS. 36899 A. 1755. 7 William Marshall, Rural Economy of Yorkshire 2 Add. MS. 18276. f.105b. 1266. (2 vols., London, 1788), i. 50. c. 1788. 3 Land Rev., M. B. 220, ff. 163-164. 1608. 8 Bodl.; Rawl. B 440, f. 84. [c. 1269.] 4 Tbid., f. 44. [1608.] 9 Cartl. Abbat. de Whitby (Surtees Soc., 5 Rents. & Survs., Ro. 753. Edw. I. 1878), i. 328. 1446. 6 Add. MS. 4781. (Hen. VIII.] 508 Township Sneaton (continued) Studley Tibthorpe Waghen Wetwang Whixley Wighill Wombwell Boynton Kirkby Malzeard APPENDIX II Description in Middle field 6} acres in 6 places super Heydun 5? acres.! Terriers of two holdings. The first consists of a mes- suage, a toft, and a croft of 3 acres, with 8 acres in 10 parcels in the South field 2 acres in 4 parcels in Miln field 7% acres in 11 parcels in North field 2} acres in 4 parcels in West field. The second tenement consists of a messuage, a toft, and a croft of 2 acres, with 4} acres in South field, 1% in Miln field, and 32 in North field.” A survey in which several tenants have their arable “in the three fields.” 3 Transfer of three bovates, scil., in orientali campo to selions in 6 parcels in campo australi 18 selions in 6 parcels in campo aquilonali g selions in 6 parcels.‘ A survey in which the lessee of the demesne and one other tenant have their arable “in the three fields.” ® Transfer of 6 acres “ quarum quedam pars iacet in Westfeld ... et quedam pars in Estfeld ... et tertia pars in Midelfeld... .” 6 A terrier of the arable belonging to the prior of Helaugh Park, which comprised in North field 23? acres in West field 303 acres in East field 23% acres.” A terrier of the arable belonging to the prior of Helaugh Park, viz., in campo boriali 4% acres and 2 “ pecie”’ in g parcels in campo occidentali g§ acres in 13 parcels in campo australi 43% acres in 71 parcels.’ ‘ Extent of the demesne arable, of which ‘“‘quelibet bovata continet xiii acras et de qualibet bovata terre pos- sunt seminari per annum ix acras pro utraque semente equaliter ... et residuum quod iacet in warecto nihil valet per annum pro eo quod iacet in communi.” 9 Extent. “‘ Sunt ibidem xx acre terre que possunt semi- nari cum semine hiemali . .. sunt xx acre terre que 1 Cott. MS., Claud. D XI, f. 133b. [XIV cen. 5 Land Rev., M. B. 2209, ff. 145-146. 1608. copy.] 2 Add. MS. 18276, f. 216. 3 Land Rev., M. B. 220, ff. 155-158. 1608. 21 Hen. VII. 6 Add. MS. 18276. c. 1255. 7 Cott. MS., Vesp. A IV, f. iorb. [XVI cen.] 8 Cott. MS., Vesp. A, f. 184. (Hen. VII.] 4 Cott. MS., Otho C VIII, f. 86. [XV cen. 9 C. Inq. p:,-Mort,, Extent, with phraseology as above.® Extent, with phraseology as above.’ Extent of the demesne arable, “‘ de quibus tertia pars quolibet anno iacet in warecto et pastura eiusdem nichil valet per annum quia iacet in communi.’ 8 1 C. Ing. p. Mort., Edw. III, F. 5 (5). 5 Ibid., F. 63 (1). 14 Edw. III. 1 Edw. III. 2 Ibid., F. 44 (6). 3 Ibid., F. 38 (10). 4 Ibid., F. 59 (15). 8 Tbid., F. 65 (8). 15 Edw. III. 9 Edw. III. 7 Tbid. 8 Edw. III. 8 Ibid., F. 39 (10). 8 Edw. III. 13 Edw. III. 510 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III SUMMARIES OF TUDOR AND JACOBEAN SURVEYS WHICH ILLUSTRATE IRREGULAR FIELDS WITHIN THE AREA OF THE TWO- AND THREE-FIELD SYSTEM Areas are in acres unless otherwise specified. Messuages are indicated by m., virgates by virg., tenements by tent., cottages by cott. STONESFIELD, OXFORDSHIRE Land Rev., M. B. 224, ff. 162-180. 4 Jas. I Enclosed John Kerke, m., }virg..... 2 Wm. Hedges, m., 4 virg.... 1 Wm. Hedges, cott., } virg. . Rich. Nashe, m., 3 virg..... Geo. Owen, gent., m., } virg. Wm. Larder, m., 3 virg..... Reic. Keeth, cott.. ..2.. 0 Wm. Hicks, m., 3 virg..... Thos. Sayward, m., } virg. . Robt. Jeames, m., 1} virg... Custumarii _~ _ mio leo bol - - Ll iH leo RI Ale Liberi Tenentes Jac. Lardner, mio... ../¢).24 Rich: Dewe;) msP.%% . 22.2 Mim: Ditton) mosis «ac Rich. Meede, m.......... NS NIK ie aloo RH There are several other copyholders and freeholders. Arable in the Open Common Fields -7e—e—————————— Church . Home Gennetts field Callowe field Sarte 3 12 12 3 3 1; 92 a 3 3 i 23 12 113 1 3 nt 2 Iq IIg 14 13 I 13 1j 23 43 12 I2 1} 32 22 1 1 2 2 ri 94 8 3 2 rf 2 2 The customary tenants have stinted common of pasture for sheep in the common fields and meadows. WooTToNn, OXFORDSHIRE Land Rev., M. B. 224, ff. 181-206. 4 Jas. I Arable in the Open Common Fields Enclosed North field West field Common Custumarii Arab. Past. or end or end Meadow Jo. Gregory, m., 3 virg.......... 2 3 Bok As 70 I Jo. Gregory, m., 2 virg.......... 13 40 3 Egidius Sowthram, m., 2 virg..... I 1} 50 ae Dr Robt: Parram, m:,.2 virg..2. 2 13 oa mie 70 25 Chris’ Castell."o'm: x .virei. . 2 o 25 3 os 40 me Wan tHorhe, Jr, my: oe i 3 ri 30 z Jousymonds,, ni 1326. 4% assets: - i 20 + There are three other copyholds and several freeholds. common of pasture, but no locality is mentioned. Two customary tenants are said to have APPENDIX III S1I Lonc CooMBE, OXFORDSHIRE Land Rev., M. B. 224, ff. 58-94. 4 Jas. I Arable in the Open Common Fields SSS ESS Enclosed West Land East Common Custumarii Arab. Md. Past. field — field end Meadow Joanna Woodward, m.,3 virg. 3 13 ns 9 ae IZ Edm. Haukings, m., } virg.. +4 3 Z 5 a 33 Jo. Newman, m., } virg..... 4 23 1 3 ans 8 23 Sara Payne, m., 1 virg...... $ Ae aco 4 44 Wm. Bolton, m., 3 virg..... 3} 8 4 be 9 3 Rich. Swift, m., $ virg...... z IZ 6 13 Joo Hurst, Fvitpe. cc. es « A ae eee 2 4 5t Wm. Seacolle, 4m., 2 virg.. 10 20 .. 2 ae 13 103 Robt. Newman, m., 3 virg.. 2 2 6 13 Wm. Bowden 2m.,3virg.. 3 25 3 # 12 23 Jo: Maye, m:, } virg. ..:... 5 $ 9 & as i There are several other holdings. The free tenants have open-field arable in Over field. The cus- tomary tenants have common of pasture “in campis ” (f. 81), stinted for sheep. RAMSDEN, OXFORDSHIRE Land Rev., M. B. 189. 6 Edw. VI Arable in the Open Common Fields i Olde Gode Swinepit Shurt- Herwell Custumarii Enclosed field field field lake Serte Lucerte Jomiardeners maces ee 23d 92 ae ae “% ‘ Wm. Cottes, m., 2virg..... 3 23 13 2 33 3 6 Elizeas Kyrbey, m., 2 virg.. 3 43 12 8 is 3 ee Rope amdenicny. 2 5-.2 25: a 23 183 - 8 3 - Wan Ibeessm®. = oe, Se its 23 Ops 53 I 3 I ‘ APPENDIX III 512 « opeid WraueU siyseA ja ‘styeId ‘stdured snqrunur -wi09 ut snqtAo [x 3a ‘smba i ‘staaav Ax od amnysed eruNUIWOD ,, SI a1aq} aIBSITA YOva JOY “Spjoyasvay puv spfoyrery Aaj B pue ‘spjoyAdod 19430 Uezop B av B104 £1 z £1 £ £1 £1 £1 ot $1 £ ¢ I I i z ¢ 6 ay g coeceee sata 2 our ‘OWS “ONY + o. I l z z “* o* t seer PODS ALIN I Sug ‘yqWIS ‘sof z oe “* gS £z I £ Oo aod B1tA % “uy ‘PIOJM J ‘TONY os +. g £5 I Ll 9 9 g wie ate “SILA gy our ‘wie}Ud J ‘SOUL $1 32 2 9 ee ad Z eae ts ae BA 1 “ur ‘saurqqay ‘soul z ore * v 4 » ¥v : Ca es ‘B11a & “ur OmopIVg ‘souy £ 5 anew, 4 v At eae ay ‘SIA I Cu ‘adIng ‘soyy z “* a ¢ '. ¢ Le v g ervnch) Cec ins 1 “BIA Tl “ur ‘IO[ARL, ‘ULAA &z pjeyguy pure £ £ EE og “BIA I “ur “UIeyUay “UdFT I £¢ I v z £$ ¥ v I ‘Barta 1 “ur “yued ‘aysiepy “UdFT 4 “* g £¢ g ¢ t ae” 6Sels wie we els SILA & “uy Plo ‘YORy ae : z ppyuy pue $ + v Foote Bara T Sur “TPP “ALAA z z 5 v F gos Bra 1 Cur ouproig “}qoy § I gz ppyuy pure £ oe £ : ee “‘B11A F “ur ‘IoTART, ‘soy, z v ¢ 9 t ogcie cea: SST TAG one CLL ‘TOYSshy WM aapruy yIwaH et = PlPY Upoy Ply Aeprodg PIPY TW PRY ABWT «—PIPY AeIQ pasopug qavuinysng —$$—— =e splatq wourmod uad¢ ay} ur aqriy Tsef9 ‘S€-1 yg ‘gzz gq ‘yw “Aey pueyT AUIHSMOIMUV A ‘NACYY-NI-NOLANVH 513 APPENDIX III *MOpPoul pue oinjsed pasojoua jo Ajasie] ‘spjoyAdoo [OU 249 axI] ‘WsIsUOD ‘TeIOAES ore 919Y} YOIYM Jo ‘s19q}0 FY, “Sp[og UoUWOD apNjou! poureU eaoqe spjoyeedy a4} ATU MOpRay woulm0d, fe a : ¢ v . oe oe £z I a4 9 "I 9 L £11 em £¢ oI 4 o's z a . Zor a I v 9 an I ee oe z v g 6 Ly ty v1 6 +e oe ee £1 £1 es) prey qjo19 suopiny PPg ‘payioadsuy) uey -yeumM ape2s aAIIg nF sprit uowwo,) uedg 243 Ul aquiy Vv £z 9 £06 ZL ge s lz £6 gsi Lai 9 9 §e “sed ‘PW pesopuy £¢ SOC OMU OD OU OOO GU Wn neo OG OLR wi ‘piojsoppnyy uM Se. stories) le” ©) (el) eje) wie) we Matisprefel eee) eienie™ey 6) 8.0) 8) (8) 8) sie) 8, uoze ‘of Cy 0 Gen ae Cte OsoebsD TO GO tO OCG Ova, w ‘owed ‘soul eiusiialial.e!(s)(siip).s ceiaeiisicy bss ce )sle Ga) ial>) ial as ® ‘UL ‘yorqjoy ‘soul Fa ROO DOOR Oe CORON O20 ‘Ul ‘10038 ‘uosua33IFT ‘1qOY Siafee pUPayielhie (hk (nue eliaradenis)ia) eee e eee CeGeL Deo 0 preeH “UIZIY Cerro enc) Cue ae ChOn Ongar Cicero. Decrosoeth OO G.c Ul ‘BULIE "sey PipUsisiis/is\velle’se.n).eile eles ualie ls ene ueLsleue ‘Ul ¢ ‘BULIEM ‘sey Oreo th 0 Cet, O20) O,y O80 -nra-O ‘UL “Swe ‘Bulle M ‘sey a) eiredel sie ce elleicueueispeuenauemenene UT “Ze ‘Qua A “pey ¢ Onn cede Ceoniet) Dy CuCmrY Gd ‘UL “Sure ‘QIOW3[ PPI meeps] soqueuay, Weqry leo mle mie aie rtTaA N T'sef€ ‘9€1-So ‘yg ‘gzz “gq "WW “AOY pueyT AMIHSHOIMUVM, “TIONY dO AONVJ AHL dO LAVd ‘AANGIA\ GNV NOGONVT 3 =“ I i I 14 t t fi 3 19 (,, Yyeay 2 ,, Ur) Fr @ ¥ s £ ~ T re t Bg r > I z 9 a I I £ = H 4 ¢ a 2 os : Q i I + . Ez #9 £ £z £p $ z MORI “yaa PPY uowwo yqnos 514 mice + MOREHMNMNMAH THOM H PPG sajeq Lal “pagioads jou av spurt] asoya ‘s}UvUaz daIJ JUPIGIUAISUI VAY a1e DI9yT, *Sa19¥ JO pvaysul ,, SAApAY ,, 1 ays “. fp z © 2,055.0. 6,8 BPO O82 2186 e) ee.e. se EB) eo oe v 7 a} Jefe @ 0) 6 8.6 6ha SS oe)? BP es ee ee eee z ¢ g g ee fe 8 & he ew ee Dee a) @ ae ele ee 1 ¢ I 9 oe g S10) 8 Se) 2S @evele e156 e Blais wR) 6 8) «06 Zz £9 ¢ zg Pare 6 9-e)> as 8 eee By ai 6 6/5 4 \a)6 0 wb 6 ¢ v xs g © OM sha «8 62 s)e, 0 oF 6 pe 8) 6 0 SMe we g i ab : pe 86.8 © B/G. Sues Oke eeeheee 6 8 SS s Bie ¢ Ly to PME Ats sae» Byte asian asayab sedi euavey shen shuns ts ¢ 9 £1 3 q 2.2 sk © 2G 6 0.6 © 01.0, (8 6) os) O18. 0: Oe O00 v 9 z g o* 60m & 0 eRe e 6.6) .6) Ole Chee © ¢ ¥P oe 20ers © « mie ae) 8) 6. 0) ee 6.8: 61.9) Bi 6 81.6 & 8 z v 81 Ae + De Ge pe ae. 4.8 © ee Oe ee aoe 8 Ble. 6 fob * v £1 Be Bue: 8 @ O GUR Cm Oh) he he Wa em Os. & £¢ I I SI £ Sa SPs enact. ecemeaceas 0 8 0.0 0 © v bd £¢ tI A. 2 60 ©) © & 6 OO 8 O10 0.6 Oe) o me tn ees Pg PPG ‘yse@q = Yop ard ppsusL pasopugy eee sppPly uouwod uedg oy} ul ajqriy IA “Pa * "€g/Ph1 ‘log “SAING ® ‘say AMIHSCUOdAVIS ‘ATATM\-ATANN-NOLLOO AM, *9}a[AWI0D st S1apjoyAdos jo 4st] ayy, shoes w ‘YjIoMsouAY ‘soyy, On © S Srebeia Ss: aye oe “Wwe ‘adio ‘of aby iaeene ie 09 ‘U0}JOLL "1qOY S660 OREO hive 3109 ‘Qy eazy ‘of “ur ‘Yqiomsaudy [Jaqrsy ai pele ee hates uw ‘JaUIOT, ‘sO"uLL sae te eye: or we 09 WH ‘SOUL $b 8) @ PSR Ke 16 Ur ‘soo’'T ‘WPM ow isive: [one ‘Ww ‘QuIoyyog ‘SOUL Aue) @, bei d Ke bb aa eras . “Ul WE ‘of ‘ur ‘amOyJOquAYSIFy 1qQ0xy © SW Wi pe eh w) Or ee 5 cn w ‘dio ‘set el ws anvale eab ini wi ‘QyMa'T TONY a Ce 4 1 ¢ QI0q sAuuy 22s Seo Saat IOSONy Adoy Aq syuruay, 515 APPENDIX III “MOPPIM UOMIWIOD JO sa1dv JUIOS puR adeNssoU B SuIsIIdWOD YIvA ‘s}UIUIBUD} [[BUIS [PIDAVS 91e IIIT, euaLevelecets sue ee 0n fo Oe ener e ame ee eres spur] L eee eee a I 70 a10R z eee eee spur] EPG RKO EO spur] 9 is I o* SpUvyeO10e sc eee eget a So19B OF SDUC Gla ee ee No pe aioe £ spur] z AapsA hb Late wnat Ae spur, © pied: Coe sol1oR Fe Ai lik Ne il tei De 2020) LD 3 v - ¢ OO OO Oo F I sae So[OPicaoloG ewe ge ee sen See ets PE: spur] £ ee eee aioe =I soise F AasA 8 Ce es ee Atel meee arse spur] 9 ppege1AyM = Spur] oz WIA; @ ~~ e wePR SJOIOnCu as MoOptayy UOUIWIOD snosur] east fy PPg PPg pPy pasopuy ]]eMoreg U0} MON Teymog Spey uourwod uedgQ oy} ur afquiy [IIIA “WeH] *1f1-gz1 “y “gig ‘ “ACY pueyT AUIHSAAOTAVLS “AALSAOOY ‘SP[Py 94} Ul Sloe sAvY SSUIPjoy 9Aoqe ay} AJUD eveirerelsielione pone Is neo eeresishe OD) SOT OO aol )iel oikailalcelje) el ullaliaiialie!(sjisnel4l1e.x6)x8)(e)6 ‘1109 ‘uosuo[ B0Y Foro OU GU OOOO OD OOD Gono ONoG ul 931 ‘sOouLL SV eleolieiis/is)(sceikulemie}.e) list (6. is) (sls Tartats q109 ‘jesuuy ‘SOTLL DOOD OR OG oo Gd 4 Gita won ul uojjeIDH ‘1qOY ase a) s0! (ob! (6) ole) 6, 0 6 ete) (6 "1209 ‘Qsnoyuo} sue] ‘ud, OOOO Ooo #\s\/el_eelie} 9) exieize) (ole) aleve UyIeIS ‘of OO oo tho OD OD Om o OO Oo ooo oo ‘Ul UAyVg ‘of THEM 3® squeuay, APPENDIX III 516 ‘aso[9 BUOY 94} SI SIU 1 *Ajyeuorjiodoid arey syuvus3 19430 94} pur ,,‘sinba Mr ‘snqiyeurue fa ‘snqinuepiq x] O1d ,, anysed yo uowwOd sey JedAoD preyorY ‘sBurppoy rvprus yeroags are ay LT + gi QI gi gi tr cece cence nhaje, Seajals) §.08 eee eens ‘SILA b our ‘SouNUO J, ROT oI Sr Cx Sr Cr ¢ ee paces te SATA S “ES Ae AAOS)) "Ca ET 9 Cr i a Cr Er ¥z Seve eis) 8 eeu @ 5 ene) 6 eee tae) een Ss “BITA ¢ “ur ¢ UNIe yy "190" ¢ OI OI lobe OI £1 ee OW se) sree » ee w b.e hee « aa BITA £z “ur z >i eye | yey + g g . 8 8 4 Rie) f Gs 06 Spee wee 0) kin ares Wi wl wine etn « “BIA Z “ur ‘Quire ‘soul ¢ l Ll l yp z Wie eee) Wadia s Co EM OR Ge Ie bats ICU OR OROROEC . **BITA £1 Say ‘radon ‘NY MopraA purTpeA, AS|TAN PpPy earor7T PIeg IS8A\ Suopiny 233eN pasopuy tueumysng SS -_ uoww0, Sp]aty uoMMoD uedg a4} UI afqeiy *glvi-Sbi “y ‘Of -g “WW OU YY PPX AUIHSAALSAINOTY ‘VOOIG NOLSUVIT *pouorjuaw st AjI]e90] ou nq ‘Ajpeuornsodoid arey sjuvua} 10430 ay} pur ,,‘snqyuapiq jx ‘snqieuue ma oid ,, ainjsed yo uoWWOD sey WEIOF A10aH ‘sFUrpjoy Avis [esaAos orv o1OYT, P oI oI oI Ol - TSR RL ese ah 8 wee leh 8 as le wie ‘BITA z “uy z ‘SOMOFT ‘SOUL ¥1 ib > ¢ ¢ ][epussoy 1 TOO ORCHID SCHC SOTO RCTIOS ACT WU st Ua Ta aC cst mat SATA & “ur ‘SuITUIe FT ‘of z 9 9 9 ¢ B SON Ie 8 © Cee ce Ole e 0.0 © e),6, a e8 er €.825) 0, VS, BS Woe Lecene SIA I “ur ‘Qpre A, ‘SOUL I 9 9 ¢ 9 7 ee OL) Te Te “‘BILA 7 “ur ‘AQTWOIg “WeEM I g g 6 g Ps Teese iaeee Pim bs wd 8 SS © Bue fe eels SILA rd “ur z ‘SUIqOY ‘Bl I 6 L 9 9 1 [[epuersy Dee ee a eames a coer ms She erat whe ety ae ‘BITA £1 “ug ‘We}[OF] ‘095 MOPPO)T PPy Ppleg Molle g PPg PpPy pesopuy siappoyAdoy wuourulO0’) SOM eIPPIAL IYOIGeS apPraiqaloys a ed Spjelq WouwoD usdg a4} ur afqriy IA “py 9 “ogt—fgr “yg Of “gw SUM “WXT AMIHSUALSANNOTY) ‘CAOATAM, 517 APPENDIX III min cl niw Ce ye) miss mice MOpRayy WOUWIWIOD + weydey[9 ‘S syory ay ‘% uojysesinyy ‘&z pjay auraaag ‘ZE ppy suewuumys ‘21 ppey JosunzyT € saagg syorny ‘22 pry suruinys ‘Soumop weysog ‘2b pjoy sowopy I syry ‘% ouMOp WeYyIOg £ quour -9ua} ayuy ‘f aspry deg ‘fr puvjaysisyy ‘EI uMoq sweppeg ‘¥ ppy sowozy ‘$1 yyJor9}S01g Zaspu dejg ‘1 s1oesu07T ‘21 ploy somoyy ‘2 uojsesouuoyy ‘2 purty -amMoy ‘EI saag[g ‘z su10yIqo'T z adni oddeyj9g ‘z syory ‘I ppy sosunzyy ‘¥1 oi0eZu07T £z aspry oddeyg ‘1 TWppiug “b yor ysorg “% syory £ suojagx ‘9 1JOI9}Sa1g #1 Spry “fF edpry edde)O ‘F | spuvjay ‘21 uosedinyo T yy weyde)) UOT[AS I 9YsIOWI7ed -suoT ‘% samoysuuAmpoony ‘I PIPY IYPIOD “F Syory “FI saaayD snooury]]adsI Jy ‘apeul aie ainjsed AuIpIesaI s}uau9}e}S ON 6 6 Oo *I 9 9 I s £9 we iit I £ 8 49 I t a tz z ZI e1 tI ty £6 6 Zz g z £6 or Fé z £L 9 £ z Peg Prey PIPeg $}7RIdA'T axe] aspry [21] SppPly woumod usdgQ 94} ur ajquiy mie Lal lea wn ! ze mie ise) rie ole z i Yoru WY] wyoroneg yyosapey —— S 4 ZI ei Tee ee £Q (oe (0) Hf £1 £ a 8 L S 8 9 Side tee ‘yseq ‘qeiy pasopua ‘srappoyAdos 19430 92143 a1e 919 7, tee e ees cory ‘Quiny{ PUIIO}e Sy eee eee "BAILA I “ur ‘sIog uM ce Bira rT “ur Fasues ‘oRNy oe ee ewes DED on ‘QUINT ‘sou, "Bara £1 Cur ‘JayWA A “SOUL see SSC RITA 2. Cum STAN col Pe he ‘BILA I Sur ‘Syl ‘INA 00-0 oD “BITA I “ur ‘s1oq ‘soul Ota Us Outi ened 0 ul oe WA Goud OOo 0 Oo Oo ul ‘S[ODINT UM “oS r “ur Gayeg euueyof siapjoyAdod 09-98 “yy “Of “GW “WY ‘YX — AMINSaaLSaONOTD ‘WV]{ JO AONVJ AHL AO Lavg ‘NOLdvID APPENDIX III 518 ole oo» al L I g fe PP?g epPAT Zuojng Zuey yyorsproig ee ae) £ mie ice CE >: > i; ee eo nin w” PY YINOS Py yakey — ppey 3s9A SpPlq uouuo) usd¢ ay} ur ajqriy ‘99-bb “yy ‘ob/z ‘WWI0g “SAIN W ‘s]UIY «c []2PU2IeJ ,, B Pay[’d st ayesI1A v Jo yrvd YJANOJ aYT, 1 oe ee Zt oe ye , oe oe ee e oe ¢ . oe ¢ . . ic oe . ¢ g $ (‘ysed) g £y z . z Tt T ay . z zg : r 8 a : &z z I z £ - iL . an : £1 I a v IA “pq 1 AUIHSUALSANNOT) ‘AALSAIOALT z gS PP¥dA PIPY PIOYON “IStd “PIN “Guy ** "00 our ‘QWaueg ‘of eee “Barta 2 “ur ‘SUDYTELM, ‘of Sse 06 “BIA I “ur ‘AQTAM ‘yore f °° “BIA I Cur ‘apomaroF] euuvof see “BILA g “ur ‘Qpuolly ONY ia Was SIA I “uw ‘InojAvy, ‘of . fg BTA T Cur “YIOMATIN AA “SOUT, & Z Sara ¥ “ur “YOM TTY AA ‘SOUT, € 6 ‘tc Ba 1 “ur ‘auresy ‘of 8 °° SIA T “ur ‘OMOAR TAT “UA “+ ‘Sra € “ur Gopapunyy ‘soy, Ce Soren ‘ara = “ur ‘Quojoig ‘of 9 Sine Me ee cay BIIA I “ug z ‘19]39g ‘of $y oo ** s+ Barra ¥ Cur ‘suowAg "we 7 “pata & “ur Sueurdiyg “WA, taeunysnd pasopuq 519 APPENDIX III ric mia ait MOPpLay, uowwi0) eeeeee Cr Cr ee gf £¢ BOO COD SOOO ODOUR i Nent en 0g ON oe | eeeeee Cr Sr ee ¢ z tree eeeeceeece eee seBara Tour MK —— alieiejienare Sr Cr oe gg v oes cae aie oie Aether to BML OED (O, sielisuetets pr Er O20 ce z ¢ sielteieneve Ds ROSS 0, un Ci yo (ay lt Coe pee) p ZI ppey pug ee oe ee ee 9 PI DOOSGONOGOD OR AN fs Hear slo(ofoyap OU lE oe eee oe 6z ¢ z z ry ee ew ee SIA 1 “UL ‘—— ‘UA oo COO tz oe bz S &z ee ceee Seats STA AE Our ‘SuATIY AA ruueyof Il Prey apiseg ‘or PPy pug aie ee oe cit ¢ Siorneml Telonoheiells fetereturel-autstie) (canter sieve BIA & ou ‘UATE ie Z OS¥S 9] Ul Lal £z 8 ZI 9 “BIIA 1 “JUa} ‘YIAUIG "YDIN' PUB SYDIFT “WIAA sie 6S ° Ed 6 26 t ake sper ees so RatA Eelam MOgaTN ‘Of, oz pjey uy Snyed0A sndureo sniye ie es LI 8 Tibi So Sagaies ycmerrie gee S11A 2 “ur ‘ouevap B® YOY ‘QI PRY ye013 oy} QI oe +. TL (SS | Oli ood Ofori: Gc: 0 “BIIA IT “wr Son] preg Snosue]]aosi fy PP PysIaW «= Pjep esulpe_ Ess PJP UT ‘ystq ‘PW liewnysng es ae pasopauq SEL | uowui0;) wad ay} Ul a[qRiy JA ‘Mpy I ‘vor-z6 ‘y ‘ob/z ‘arog “SAING 2 ‘s}UIY — AAIHSAALSANNOTY) ‘NOLAOP eee . 6 gs . 9 g &¢ OOOO Oot of od “BITA g Sur ‘amoy) ONY ekevesanae OL 9 oe 9 Zor Oe Oat). Oo Di “BIA £ “ur ‘sqqiy “IeBILIN, 6 PPY suAppry 8 o. oe 8 . Ole ee eee “DITA & our ‘aqqery) uyof Byalie dela Ca! 6 9 . l g 8 mosooooou aon “311A & “ur ‘“aprog uyof & PPey Ag]IOWpY oe a L v v 9 ee ‘BIIA & Cur ‘QysIeyy PACE 4 prey Aepourpy fe fe tN tek SE eee geet mee da et : sen ticnseah 8 8 ZI sara ¥ Cur z ‘SUTyIEM “ONY 9 Prey JoTNoY O90 on sd OD 8 OL | | (flicker: “BITA U4 Our ‘JOUIPIey ONY CML ONO Zor (3 oe Z oe £07 CwOne Cet Wt ci “BITA Fa “ur (4 ‘soprvoly ‘soul Oooo L gS 6 an ger (6/0) (ele) (e)\e) #) 86 /i8) (©) “BIIA % Sur ‘Qpiog WPM £Ly PPy Aajowpy on o. p 4 Ol Oly ae eas 0065 “SILA t “ur ‘JOplOH ‘2 SnNoour]aosi fy PPY PON PPI TYMeq equwosjazAyT play Auo}G = aquIoD ajaIN = -9AN]SVq teunysny Ribs Becl — pasopouy SppPlq uouuwoD uedG ey} Ul a]qQRIy IA ‘Mpy i ‘ob-1 ‘yg ‘g1/z ‘rog “saing 2 ‘sJUayY — AAIHSAALSANNOTH ‘HSIGNVIG JO ONIHIIT, V ‘HONATXO APPENDIX III £¢ ZI aysAaT oy} fas “4 a OI L z aAyIOMsauT AA ‘9 BYZAIT 9y} 4S a gz + or ppg addny ‘z Aajay~y ‘1 Aajsunq £1 £ £¢ £¢ Z PpPy-exDON ; z 8 ¥ y €z Aajay Ay ‘$ sakey a] $s is at $s z Adu 6 9 4 rat ss € ysiasuXq ‘fz spreudy S z I z 1 Ajay ‘I spreud’T £ a i. £9 2 le A de aS br 6 £1 (ausawap 6 yyIM) z 14 z AIMIMOUY rE Re og £ % apowynos ‘Ef aryAy A I 1 re ZI t9 I 9301389307) ‘z sqjoyaudy ‘£ apaunog ‘Er spuepoy AA 8 g OI z OI [[Ityasoy e}eI0A stuNUTWIOD £¢ £¢ £p f eMopauIy}ION ‘1 apowupnosd ‘EE spay AA 9 oS ons £1 I I syIIIg YT, g £1 a LL MopeayW snoaury[aost PP¥dQ = PRY GUON play 389.4 ‘yseq pur “py uourWmo’) pasopug SppPly wourmo0D uadg 243 ul afqriy IA ‘Mpa t “98-49 “y “ob/z ‘friog “saing R ‘s}udy AMIHSYALSAONOTYH ‘ALVA “t's Tfepuaray 1 “ur ‘Aarau AG “UA, S[jepussay z “ur ‘AinquiAq sniowue py Simin yy eer ese rei elaliag esi eeu ‘aq10YS “PY Shei *yjepuesey 1 “ur ‘ayzAwg ‘uozy Baise onus aca s 6 pie Gitar at ania w ‘IOTART, ‘SOUT, S/érreiupb Deh alee a) 6 ae aie y09 QuMolg *1qQOY BU eee eels sce e elae yh sa pi lW « wie qodoy ‘of SG) ml e))e ee) 4 . T[epuesey I “ur ‘radoa ‘of 26 Sin vse is is) 6) sw Bless le 0 Je ‘Ul STON WA wo) ele 88s ih) e/ se ererew wi ‘uAydurary, WM ee SS T[PPuetey I no CS echt COR CE eC rae “Ur ‘SATTIOA “AINe'T ‘sudJod ‘soul ‘ur ‘tadoyy ‘of aewupuny r “ur ‘proysidg eyjaqes] wi ‘arsjaq ‘of tewnysng G2I APPENDIX III (‘UOUTWIOD aq 0} Pres JOU 91v INO} JseL.eyYL) “bv pjay surg pue ppy opry ‘2 prey sory ‘z yor arpprm “6 ppey younyD ‘E yyosoMoT “9 PpPy 3S°M ZI ppey ssurwmapq ey ‘S prey plo a ‘9 pyey [[eazanb 92 ‘Er pyey 3seAA PF ‘OF Ppey 9eH Z ppy sem “4 ppy Aeoysy “9 PIP SIO I yyeoyy ay ‘It purpioug ‘1 aymodayiypy ‘r syiddumyg ‘€ yorssayy “$ onsumy ‘EE SuojnjAry ppey [YAH ‘4 ppy sey (uoUIUIOD aq 0} pres jou) 4 ppy UN ‘ppey [[emouoys ‘Sr 97eF oy) 1” PpPy 9yL L ppy romory ‘9 play T[euors ‘Sz ppey saquiod “gr pley eo) € ppy uews0N ‘b prey yornyD ‘E a3J019 MOT ‘g pjay ISAM € ayyoro ary ‘PY pray apry ‘e ppy purfAamy “% ppey suews0N b a3jor9 ort ‘2 pray apy ‘€ purpsa,y ‘S pjay assorp ‘Ir ppey ueUlION, Fr ppey yess09 ‘v1 prey sequiod Z SpurjAy 9] ‘€ Zuopiny Aig ‘% Suopny MOTOFT ‘g P[PY spr0jse,q 9] ‘or ppey prog 2 ‘oO Ply sy £1 JJosI9TIIT PUL OBpag 2 ‘ZI ppg SIOIAM “OT Ply TYENIWH II ppey s9yIIAA ‘Or o}JoOssePy ‘6 ppy TIqeNIWAD Sp[Plq wourwog usdQO oy} Ul squiy I‘sefg ‘1v€-1€€ -y ‘Liz ‘gq ‘Ww “Ady pueyT ANIHSGUOMAAAPT ‘NOLAOOLS JO ATIWAY V ‘NOLATAAIPT mia RIA RIN Olt aie w+ Oo mo oO 0 aod a tI ZI £iI *ystq ric cole oH + ‘PW pasopugq ze *** ‘ur Spuneyy eseo0f 4 sete ‘WI Wd puerlMoy I sees ur SpulLM ‘Td A Us OS ‘Ul ‘QpulMy TEM gr cw ‘sddyryg uyof x "+ ur Sysnoy vuueyot g Ce eck ch wi ‘adde x ‘sou z ‘wt “juas ‘poomn y 3qoy € cw “juad ‘poomyn, y "}qoy Simba 2 ‘ur ‘raqyuadieg ‘of z sreheere kerry, ‘9yI09 ‘SOUL g INO A ON 5 ‘qqWIS “UMA g eee ee ene Ww ‘yoopie x ‘of “qehiy Tr7ewnjysny APPENDIX III 522 «¢ Stjotpaid stdwies snqrunuiuwiod ul ainjzsed BrunuWOD ,, sey 9U0}S}OY AA “SOUT, ¢ « SNQIAO xX] Od T]IGsakapsuAM J2@ pOOMaYsNg SIZOA sIySvA Ul jd SINS stvAe snqiuwo oid stjorpaad sidweo snqrunwwos ul vInysed eIUNWIWOD ,, sey JayORS UYgOL |; £p ropes Be 9 ¥ i $ a oI tv tz fy cesses sur sudyduioy ‘soyy, I ee eeee g 9 oe oe ¢ oe g ¥o oe z "reese ss sear HiojsueyT ‘SOUL "* & ppy amopyojay ie ‘c ppy Aing = gt “i + Z I 9 OI gi 9 ee cir at Som Ter SOU s: Sy 9 a ere a tI spuvjAy pue zr z 8 z 9 6 £ Eooccrcsss* sur Sspaupeg ‘soy, £z S02 Oe SDE Ay Due OF = $ amoyapqwyT pur 9 £f £ : oe ar eas Sia w SAAy “BIR a) A a eis es £11 9 £1 g z I - tp oe ‘pred CUCRCCROMI 4 6 ;{0u07S}OY MA ‘sou tz £ aaoizddog ‘TpPpyNld 8 v e fi #2 ft 9 t z tame re “wi “proypag 19972 z 6ppyntqg "" £ £ £ + I II bz te eee es ‘ut ‘aspoupeg ‘soy, MOPRI WT snosueyaosiy = pjag. spurpAy oJOI[Iq sanoT PpPy aMoy amoy «6'StCd «6PWOC Quay tewnysng uourwo7) 9AO0I‘) yeolry 9789 “Ipwy yon 2 pasopug — Sp]aty uoumod) uedg ay} ul ajqeuiy I‘sef{9 ‘tg-44 -y ‘Liz -g ‘Ww “Aoy pure] — aulHsauoadaay] ‘NOLONIAT JO UaAWAy V ‘ATTAAIAG eevee o. o. ¥ . z ee z z I I "Sets 22 OS OAS TpOT £1 9 ppy Ay ts Pi I oF) £1, z gL Sz £¢ Bon anes fee wi ‘poomseddoyy ‘soyy, ¢ rppyapiy § Iz £1 re 3 chs tr ¢ ¢ | age Oe ‘ur ‘suIssIFy “ISsTIYD £1 9Pppy ay &§ cP oI “9 9 ge ZI £1 z epee Se OL ‘ur ‘SIAR “WIRY eS) ee oe o* “* o* * a I oe £y “* ge rey Wt a) ee) Ue) fw fel) * our ‘SAAR “1qgOY v1 eeeeee ¢ ZI ee ¢ II z YI QI fi 1 le ay a Ya Ie JME) ‘ul ‘ueulpooy UM eer Tihs Tin< KOS oie © oe ee e- A z ee ¢ ee ede nS SRC Head Tae SAT it Bas | ur ‘ayood “UI SRM Mlb | @opReap ee ¢ ee ee Sd ee is 9 oe & Cle SB e we eee Se ‘ur ‘ayortg ‘of fr 71 py eppyH 8 id I 9 b e gi 1z z 1g ke eae eM ‘ur ,“Tayorg ‘yot g eeeeves oe oe oe z I ¢ ¢ tI oe 1 Oe en RO ROUCET IEC TTR TEED ui ‘samopog ‘yot moprayy snosueypessiyy = —— pay PIPg apuo| PPy "PPG PIPYy PPg Std PIN “Quy Waeumnysn) uowwo-) = adoyyynog = jjay events doquayrg ouMog Avyj\saig es 8 pesopugq Sp[atq UouWOD uedgQ aq} Ut aqrIy {sey 9 ‘OS-6b -y ‘Liz ‘gq ‘yy “Aoy puey — auiMsaquoaqaay] ‘NOLONIAT dO WAMWAPY V ‘AYOWNI(]-AAANN-AdOP] 523 APPENDIX Ili mica © ‘seq “PW Piet wado t2 © [ITH sioupoq ‘g Jorg suozsI_Q = TMUPIO sospu Sf pue ‘g payioeds -ug ‘bY yoIYsy © TH4PIO f I YPIO s T TYPIO t z TI4PIO z z purjsodeu pig ‘ TIYPIO min ein ~ min Ain z £ 4jo19 SUOZIO ‘| Tryszeupoqd #2 9 [tysreupod z Z JOIISUOZIO snoaury[aost fl co Waid Ll . oe 9 ee ee I : £ I £1 z sospu ¥ pue ‘2 L saspu 6 pur ‘9 : ny oe v6 af as I £ v g I I z z : I I z 4 I : z e 6 6 ; : I I I ; oie : Nn 5 . II £/ < s oe TI on 6 s}ing + ‘saspu b pue ‘zi saspl b pue ‘9 ynq 1 pue ‘2 Sy ay oe ae Iv 6£ 09 1Z qrysuozAg P[Py eOus|MoD yorouURW, ppyurAI4g seyxoIS ]feajouy sppPly uourui07) uadg 24) Ur a[qriy "S6-Lo “y ‘Soglz ‘SW ‘PPV qaIHsauormaay] SALIGY AXOLS “2i[al Ob min +! mia IA RIA Rin ol a Se) . miles gz pasopouq * ur ‘Sofaied Jas0y “ur z JojAey ‘of ‘ur ‘“9AINGINN ITV “ur ‘sAoryof 1930 “ur ‘proyurq 1930y * ul ‘ployuep ‘soyy, eee TT ‘sasry ‘wpa ‘ur b ‘raAI “UM ‘ur z@ ‘sAaryof ‘SOUT, “um ‘SIOUIeD “SIRI see cory ‘sospoy] ‘of COSI § 0 ‘1oumM ], ‘of “+ ‘ur ‘saspoyy "UA, siappoyAdoy sinha shel s,are « ausoula(y APPENDIX III 524 “uvydivyg ‘azvajdaays ‘azeajaio,y ‘azvayyove'y ‘prawyWOMpyeyS ‘a1ourjsa A ‘AasIozy iseinjsed SuLMOTJOJ ay} JO aWOS UI JO [[e UI UOWWOD savy sjutUaZ AIvWIO}SNd pur say ,,"01]SNe ONbyWue ap ,, Saiov Oz IO ‘or ‘S se paqiiosap A]jUeNbayy are SSUIpPjOH I $ puelpeq z * + aH gL £ Fore ee ae sjjeprey € “ur ‘adayumnyzy ‘of I g Peg uasory oe oe o. o. nat I £6 Sle se: (6 fee eww eae S]]@Pz9y ¢ “ug ‘qaryo ‘of ee ee eae ae “* . oe o. oe ¥zz oe eae SS UC ee Ua ac | “BITA & “ug ‘Q4o0oy ‘sO"uL I I puo[psq * oa “. oe £L oe ZI We Ves al Je) Ost eye Wh Bee HH Sar te oe ccuy ‘UIYDMOT, ‘of ee A eee ae t oe z oe oe oe g CeCe ty wich ce} STILT 5 5 ‘uosdey auueyof & I pjey suieg sy Tysddoysng I Z I . y DVT AA ee Ci ete ee a ath es) aw ee. ‘UL ‘UIyOMOT, ‘udyT I I SuopinjauAa J, oe a3 £y (6 . t BUM Sies deh) ace) eCn WTR pele was: ECONO 9 Oxy ‘of £ ee eees + 3 z ¢ I g CCITT IB te Te WCC AC Ba ea ti PP Tay PPTL Wee ul ‘UoJARICG, ‘of 4 I purjuraq Zz I C3 £1 I * Z Se) A 8 ee a ae eee ene ee ee "uw ‘Qyono'y 095) tI eee eee . . tI £8z <6 0. 6. wis 0S ee stn» ol D6 8 a pe She ‘Ww ‘s]JOI9 ‘of 4 1 puryuuny I oe cary yz oe oe Sy Rm: A) Ba) 9), 618).@' 18) 6 10)(8)'6) Ws) Se) Sy Sik Ve ‘Ur ‘sdiyqiag ‘ONY g I purjuuny, Z I o. I oe oe z CC ave we ee Os 6 ¢ IAT ‘soul g sete z I I 9 %z oe t COTM Yc) COC wiry Ga en) POT | ‘1e3RIG ‘JqQOY fr see eee . o. g¢ z I z £1 ed © 650 0 ¢ @8s 6 8 ols ‘ul ‘sqqig WM MOPPIW snosurypPstwy = p]PY TH u0jvION yuomAy ywomoudg ‘ysvg ‘PW “qriy tewnysng wourMO) aes pasopugq PlPlq uouul0s uadg ay} Ul aquiy [I ‘sef $-£] -“€Sz-661 -y ‘zoz *g ‘pw “aay puey LASUAWOG ‘AUNASONTY 525 APPENDIX lil MOprayy uowM0; erin Nn 41 I MOpPayy uoulUI0D, v ppy eM YIION (4 Peg SIM £ ppey aay Won “€ py AW $ ppy LW ‘Y PIPy SOMA SNOaUey]aoS IFA, ‘qIOW]INY,T, Ul UOJdwIeYZUIS Jo asoYy} ‘a1OW]IeT SeI[e sIOOWAyIeY Ul 9Injsed Jo UOMWOD pazur}sUN aAvY UOJING JO SIapjoyAdo|) ool mit puejpieyH SppPely wouurog wadg ay} ul aqeiy I }JOINISIOY{ ‘€ pjey weysodurA’y $ ppey weysedurA'T # PPE Pe e® Pes PMP snoour][aost fl PPY ey, I I tI se fy £1 oe £62 ee gy ener I of Il ee zt eee g I CT oe £ eeee £Q oe £tz tV eee £Z oe oe ee g ee ¢ ee 7QI oe 4 eee PPy seq sumo seq =| PN ‘QRAY 2 aeane pasopouq I ee Lt oe Vv eee gI - z vam) Z oe ELT ¢ eee g I z Tact L Gabo Ba £ Sve 6 &% aac init is Li Zor I Sy £1 £6z (a4 £1 says PPy ISAM auMog wed PA ‘qeay see weydieyg a] sadng pasopuq —~— Spel wourmodg uedQ ay} ul ajquiy Tsef be ‘br11-£S -y ‘Sez -g ‘f “ AY pueT Lasuawos ‘INaXgG ISVvy ou ‘UIe ‘of “ur BGurMmorg "yyey see ee uw {jeumng mW “ur ‘pogq uyof Coon On0) CuO 40 Otc ded c: O60 Oath Once cay GlOtie wid ko ‘UL Tass] ‘IDIN Senne: hy ceclete OU OhOe Orr T)-Ce OO} CCP ON ONG Ca) ul ‘Qs10F] ‘sOouL e)lailajie“e tele (e's! (eRe) (e) et leriei vs) 06 (s)Jal le) im) ele. mis ul ‘UOSe IT UM uojdwerysuts jo Sulyzty, ‘Waeumnysnd uojINg jo Suryyy ‘lazewnysny APPENDIX III 526 z z gs s £¢ ¢ £1 ve z g + S ge : 9 sj + z iF Le a8 £2 ee ee 6 IP “* “* + hf Ll . . . z¢ ay tI z zI ZI Ss MOprayy Prey PIPg Py uowwo, a10WSey a10W}S9 yoraig eS et eS eee Sp[ety uouMoD uadoO ayy ut afqriy oe ¢ Ss or er v . (4 + ‘ (4 e z T PPY Pg yynog apy “(QO *}) 10M YIpPY ‘aiow Jjauuvsy ‘poom amosogsegy ‘aiowaysjT] ‘Q10Ul PIvUUayY ‘aIOOUI UOWIOD ‘e100WIaSpag :SUOWIWOD SUIMOT[OJ ay} JO zed B JO [Je JOAO aINysed Jo UOWIOD pazurjsun savy Ajjensn siappoyAdoo pur siapjoqaazy z #S ze ge £p S gs 23 fd . ¥1z tr $1 6 $ S$ ze or auMod auUMO( 9UI9}S9 ausaqsy £6 £ g “+ ur uoyeyuNcy ‘of ¢ ¢ g STAI LOT Gg ‘19}IVa “MPO flr oe & eS Se OAUNT SOU) L I % "++ ‘wi uoJIayUN ‘sous, z . g eeeeeenee TCT 6 SALT ‘of *61 ee #1 oe Ob apes “MPW £1 ee g “sur SpaysurAry “WA z ere I ‘wu “uag ‘preddayg ‘wy of . a4 Tas Yh; Yee Bu tae fae) ‘Wl ‘TOE ANG | S +P 1 “"w ‘enpta ‘sjoxy vuueyot £z ¢¢ £Q fe be Weer a ul “uas QALY ‘of £0f fr -*-*--ur ‘prevaydays "3qoxy . ¢ I POPPE OO Nee eae Tg OER | oz s¢ Sy a Tore Me ne tw Teo ‘Wu ‘Tay[eH ‘of “ytd ‘PIN qriy Teurnysny) pasopuy j ‘se[ & *6S1-Sor -y ‘coz “g ‘Py “Ay pue’y — Lasuawos ‘GUVNNAg ISAM, QHON 947 Ul sem YyoIyA ,,‘a900ed sappos UI ,, a1v ainqsed pasojoua jo sjad1ed 94} Jo Auvp z z a Sr z ,& ‘Sz 7) i ee a Si z tb y YON pure & Teele: aaa PPS YYON PP YINCS “seq “PKK “Quy Spatqy uoumod usdg ay? Ul e[qray pasopugq I ‘sep ¢ “** "ur sarpaeg uyof olka: am uw ‘spoppng ‘of “6 ew # ‘wl ‘KAOT, ONT “os str SUIMYI]AT ‘SOUT, Sok wee uw 9sudy ‘MPT tuewnysng ‘ainqsed JO UOMWIOD 0} adUdIAJAI OU SI JIBYT, “ysadIe] OY} SuOWL Suloq aAoqe pejou asoy} ‘[]euUs AT]eNsN av sFurpfoy ayy, £ I S ze PP YON PIPF INOS Spay uwouwo) uadg ay} Ul aquay 8 z fe “FI 11 ‘EP £z £1 £z ‘std ‘PW “qty “(261 °}) ppg &/ £z 8).8) 6,6). e 10,050 8 wi ‘KAOT, ‘OY ak I ** ‘uw Sayojng euuryof ‘ el Pac meee Ww ‘ayong uyof 1791 se eee “UL ‘sewoyy, ‘MPT 1 $2 Ceri ery t ° cr ‘UOSTAR(T ‘of Ir 9 “€g ‘aaa t “uw Sasudy vioity tuewinysng pasopug ‘L61-Loi ‘y ‘coz “g ‘WW “AVY pure] — LASXAWOS ‘dITIHG “LS NOLYON 527 APPENDIX III AIS it colt ries Qa = = SN [00 RIA RIN Rice MOpRay uowlw0) OI 9UMOG] 94} jo jaed 934510 oY, snooueyaosi fy «¢ WeUetI0 Odured ur ,, Sav S JO asojo B SUIpNpoUT + 8% : z 9 £ 4: £ ZI y S &z Sy " $ ¢ I a a aaqaAgq ayoveig aprs 9 . s z z y £1 Z 9 ol via tI OI 4 I oI v s £ 9 iy 8 £ x€ syeqUeOQ —-SI]BJWEpIN9Q, sndured sndure) —~—— Sppety Uomo, usdyO ay} ul 9]qQrIy O1gI 99S ‘oy “SAING 2 ‘SJ LAISUANOS ‘ILATIVIT AWAND ‘Q1OWIATPas Ul ,, JUIJS SUBS ,, UOUTWIOD aARY S}ULUD} 2y.7, oe oe ¥ tor o. ‘4 z £6 Zz &/ z ti ‘stg “PW “qty pasopugq ur ‘rake, diy Sins) sire) 6) 0) 6a o/s ere rs ‘Ww ‘OYMPH sousy SGame taelmcaimene enemas UL ‘ut ‘operayy uyof ‘Ur “TOO “Yor aI 4 6 ‘Tye ‘of - Ur ‘I9ITJOO ‘of “ur ‘OSMOFT IWIOIOL CMP Chath ‘Ul ‘SI9qSPIAT IRL CheiekeMmememaxey ry ‘Qpray ANIC | uw “OTPPHA “SOUL ‘ur ‘asnoyy] osnzT ‘greaulie}}() ‘of “ur ‘uewyog ‘of Tueunysng APPENDIX III 528 uourW0d U MOpRay uowlul07) z ee “ur “UOSUTyTIM “UY sajze3 PI t9 £ Li 7S1 £41 £y *6 On eee Sas s3xo $ “ur ‘AayMOY “WA, ue) Aq Aoprayy PPg PIPY PPY PPY eMOT ayepuyoy, ppey way “seq s1opjoyasea] ur ainjseg uowlwo) punjAal[q purpsuey ayesoyiry pesopuq —— SPpPlq Uowwo) usdgQ oy} ul ajqriy I ‘se{ 9 *96-06 -y ‘6zz “g “Ww “ADY puey — aTaIHSNYOA ‘AGUATITAA “SUOWIWOD PozeUsIsap 2AY Ul (dooys Joy pazur}s) UOUTWIOD Jo s}YFII ALY syULUa} [[y “sIOpfoyAdoo JoYyIO WYSI av VIIyT, ¢ £¢ ¥1z are ele ip 606 6 ¢ 0 ey) e a w ‘pleMP}T ‘ued £¢ ¢ re 2) © 018. sinne- clienehviaws 65 wi ‘prey—piQ sO“, oI I ¥6 eeeeere reece eee uw ‘rouuerdg WA z I 8$ 2s) sieisye) ares O Rw ele eee ul ‘OUMO(T ‘of z Ye a een ieee Ww ‘tadoaT "UM ¢ ty Que # evehsiene: bun ain « Kollel “Ur un IDLY 5 Ce ee ror see eee eens w ‘poads ouef 6 £1 ¥LE Cen rca acts, th 5 uw ‘1U038 ‘91R9 J “UM oe for £9 a ake iae Ce SMe. oe Bees ‘WI ‘KaIvY ‘of to to Srp ie, Seveee ete! @ 5 “Ur ‘gjppuns wpne “* g Sr werwecessse ¢9 Serr ‘ployory UM £6 gf Od Sere. bale. wuel vw e) Bens © 8 wi ‘AQAIV FT ‘of PpPyg seq PPy 3S94, pesopuy siapjoyAdoy PPy wey ppPy se pasopuy siopjoyAdoy J?! wourw0-) Spply wouuwoy uad¢ a4} Ul ajquiy uadQ ay} ul ajquiy 1‘se{9 ‘ob-c£ -y ‘Izb gq ‘Ww “JO ‘Bny ‘yoxY — LHOIM AO AIST ‘NOLIN APPENDIX III icv amar mot Oo = | 4 “ sozet) ” ainjseg ¥ rag MOpRayy uowlm0d *$1998}}09 9014} 10} 3d9dxa 93a})AUI0D SI saassay JO JsSI] VAOQR JYT, shengyensis v + tr I S 9 S ae Soaks ae ¢ ) I ZL £9 g z puny 94} ul ce ss L s L oy 6 Ch Oe v g of oa 6 font £1 9 puny 94} Ul ed S at Ss OI 9 ¢punyeyur = § 9 #9 © 6 8 t ear os &z aIOWT]eP{ pur or aulog pur oI 61 asop suUIOYIepyI\ pue LZ L ny £¢ g¢ I Q d1OWIY}ION 4 S L 8 6 &z Owouwo oO .. mine, Z £Q 6 Cz oe eee . oe £z VI or 6 VI see eee o- £¢ VI I Ht 9 v bon u00 re gy I gy I ocean a’ 0 gy Ll gL 8 £1 FoI Snosur]eostpY = PUIOYIAP]I A Peg a1OW [eH PPy Sp[ey pussuMoy, prey “qeiy eg yynos pue sulog = pur[jsuoT pesopuq sppatq uoumoD uedO 243 ur ajqviy Gogt ‘z€z-Szz ‘y ‘6zz “g "|W “ADY puery FMIHSHAYOK ‘NOLHOIGAG *‘slapjoyAdoo ou aie ai9U "+ ‘ur ueyoRreg suuy Seamer sue ‘WL ‘puog ‘XoTY POMOS SIS gg ‘AoTeH UM eee ewe ‘Whe Spurg “UM tee ogy ‘yy AUIS ‘190"% * ur WeysReg ‘OuURIy] tee uy ‘yy AWS TONY ‘uw ‘uemosieg ‘[ 27 YY Cron oy "Ul ‘snpony ‘us OOS oat ‘guj Aug ‘Quy SE 65 ‘gyyAuls ‘yy SOTO Db ‘Qu yWS UOC, "+9300 ‘aiqey oydey ‘ur ‘apreyour[g 3q0xy saosso'T ‘ainjsed JO UOWIIOD SuIpredas apvUI a1v S}UAWA}e}S ON “splOYIaIJ pasojoua pue spjoyAdoo [Jews [eIVAas Iv aJOy J, tg z f zy ¥1 fe a. sie Yoru ay a ensis SR Un Re MRO Cpe o8 Preteen e ug ‘ureysuLt0d ‘140% + £1 c tr a £1 I Simiaue er evels stetage siuie ser SCEPC Nya CLEC RUCH TO Reins uae RCN IE eC Ty "osu Qyssiy ‘095 %¢ tz fy z &z rs Oe 62 een wel eNots bv ele 2 wi elarial ey Alva pe Viele oy OR AmOeRaTS ‘sou soyuouay, Waqry > ¢ fz z z Tete ao) ss cols Folle) ehinlleitnl sini/u)ia i BteNn 6 ae here es oe bis 0-0) 8 CS +o ‘uosuyof ‘SOUL ~ lL y. + £¢ PAE. OOD OIDUIDGIol OmigorclG 6 AM igoue oscar Pen ah + \goaAO & Gur ‘ayaMIDA YT ‘DoT < z kz I zy I Stee: aie ms Maes 0,0 SPRele oh sie... pifkBisa) Wiausee sere) Vis shames: 6; VTA Rema Noa te ut ‘94009 ‘of Q £1 z £z z £1 tI eo s6 5.8 @ 6 0. Leto. 80 888 68 aces . S056). 0 beh 6s DS OL) Ae) Obes eR Se ee EY 9 0 1 ‘QYsty ULM 5 ht £¢ z g¢ S 81 Setae chs) ee 66's = disiens 9 6 mir «Se en 6 88 & Bs. 6 50) owiehe Lele ose 66 ‘uz UOTYSMe'T ‘of ry ¢ tz c I r¢ z o/eee even a ees Ste aa) ee eee eee ** 97BA0q I Our ‘gyoo9 aur - z ¢ ¢ ¢ $ g PoC ta eS OMT Te) Oe see TR) ase 6) armas SNe Dh Paik) Gere 60) CLs Siena «ye 6: el een w ‘uosdyyyd ‘of I £1 x Zz 81 She; val Niveups!valins 6) e's sAsioh0) ai siniahp) Diisl's),s-0\'¢s SVaDiis) ¢)aaiaisheea are: Santon ‘ug ‘Soraeqq "BoIN) sopra —PPYSNqies Play younyy ply uepég play poo _—ppasopugq qaewinysn uoww0>) —-~ SppPlyq uourwo0g uadg ay} Ul a[qriy I‘sef$ ‘z61-zgr ‘So-9S *y ‘oSz -g ‘Ww “Ady purT AMIHSNIOONIT ‘AWIOHXY JO AIST ‘NOISMO 532 533 APPENDIX III ,¢ PruNUIW OS 2 sidureo ut ,, daays pur ‘sasioy ‘9[}7¥9 10J aNjsed Jo UOWWIOD pojzUT}s GARY S}ULUA] YT, “plOyseaj JO SaIde gg YIIM 1943090} ‘ssUIP[OY Iv[IUIIs JayJO AUvUI o1v 9IIYT, oe) Z 8 £1 S S z I x OOOO Case O00 On *AOq (9) “ur UdT|V ‘of . . & oe & g . & ‘axe 6) e)h) we) pies Peet nan "UL ‘197Sq9 ‘puy ¥g £9 ¢ 9 S 9 x Wiis) -aaacibcenele: ahem “Aoq o Oog ‘Q\seq ‘TONY £¢ £9 S &z p &z ty Zz 4 POM O eo Core ty Oat Cas ul ‘U9]0N ‘UdFT 8 Oe 8 is L v 6 I (cs eee a ag ‘Aog ¢ “un ‘uo}dwIOID “WAY For : 9 v 8 9 L % vrees ss sao b “ur ‘arayaqpoyy ‘of xS z tI 1 4S £y x6 I g “aog @ “ur ‘peaysioqjoyy BuueYyof $ % v z v z 4 tr oe Se or oI £z JMOPU MOU J] ‘QI IMOPOU }¥9I3 9] Z wees . ¢ ¢ see eee I gz oI z S}J epWMocIg L 6 see eee . L fz ueqieyy apqwy sqIWIED z £ ppey yseay ¢£ “ysed gr “purgz weyaey ¥4 SPPs VM for ad3u3ue'y whet errs} . g gl see eee Cy $ tsyourgoddnjseq °° s IZ $a1e joo, 9g oz “ Stratton Audley 2300 Hed] 3 roel | [2475] 1834 \ 593 \ 593 8 2 1865 Caversham 2363 ed te [1518] 1882 | Crowell 996 358 358 [638] ® 1813 | Culham 1963 1100 270 830 [863]>® 1845 | Curbridge 2856 IIIO 200 gio [1746] * 1848 | Denton 543 170 170 aya 1844 } Enstone, Church \ 1138 } i 1843 ) | Enstone, Neat ii 6243 1189 aoc [3916] 1763 | Merton 1926 €. 540 540 [1386]? 1760 |Neithrop \ 3302 | 6 2 Banbucy Sf - 1038 [75] [963] | [2343] 1815 | Newington \ ie ee 2105 | c. 636 636 | [1469] 1862 | Ramsden 920 STA sNCL S25 189 406 © 1788 | Sarsden 1426 757 185 572 [669]? ao : 699 | 699 2 ie Shiplake 2700 A 8 [1778] 1806 | Shirburn 2416 1173 [270] [903] | [1243]? 1853 | South Stoke \ s - ioe 3355 | 1728 250 | 1478 | [1627] 1803 | Swerford 1923 851 120 731 [1072]? 1873 | Tackley 2892 1387 1387 1505? 1826 | Thame, Priest End, \ a esis ph? pee. eseaa North Weston 34 33 5 Sf 1815 | Watlington 3685 15 34uNe|NG2 550 984 | [2151]? 1806 } . 593 | 593 5 1303 Whitchurch 1965 fre a [1257] 542 APPENDIX IV TOWNSHIPS IN WHICH LESS THAN ONE-FOURTH OF THE AREA, EXCLUSIVE OF THE WASTE, WAS ENCLOSED BETWEEN 1758 AND 1864 Open-field Old Date of : Area in |Total Area | Common Roath and Enclosures Enclosure Township 1902 ! Allotted in| or Waste | }feadow | Known or Award the Award | Allotted | Ajlotted | Estimated 1864 | Checkendon 3086 575 98 477 [251] 1802 | Drayton near Banbury 9264 199 80 119 866 © 1863 | Ewelm 2484 458 458 othe [2026]? egy : mes, = 863 ; aed Goring 4580 any 842 [2860] ne : at aitue \ 502 . 1863 Hailey 2814 fe as [2212] 1822 | Haseley, Great 3232 405 405 [2737]? 1856 \ | ety “t¥eh 521 4 1863 J Ipsden 3418 er ae [2797] 1837 \ 184 \ 184 3 1860 Leafield goo aS io [626] 1823 | Noke 790 132 132 [658]® 1845 \ 430 \ 430 } 6 ‘ea Northmoor 2014 aa <2 1554 1805 | North Newington } 1106 \ : Annie f oege Broughton 967 ane : asa 559 1852 | Pyrton 3305 630 176 454 | [2675]? 1860 | Rotherfield Greys 2605 150 iL Soe agg. | (2455) 1794 | Stoke Lynnand Fewcott | 3899 1761 |c. 1361 | ¢. 400 | [2138]? APPENDIX V 543 APPENDIX V EXTRACTS FROM THE SURVEY OF AN ESTATE LYING IN NEWCHURCH, BILSINGTON, AND ROMNEY MARSH, KENT Add. MS. 37018, ff. 42—-70.1 Dota Godewini iacet in villa de Newecherche et in marisco de Romene inter feodum sacristie ecclesie Christi Cantuariensis et Dolam Mawgeri et capitat ex parte australi ad regiam stratam que ducit a cruce Johanis Cobbe usque Northene. Et predicta Dola continet xl acras terre iacentes coniunctim. Et debet ad terminum sancti Andree Apostoli vs. de redditu assise [rents and services follow in detail]. Summa xviiis. ob. q. Adam Osbarne tenet de predicta Dola viii acras terre et quartam partem unius acre, viz., dimidiam acram terre iacentem iuxta stratam supradictam et fuit quondam mesuagium Michaelis Galiot et i acram terre vocatam longreche et i acram et dimidiam terre vocatas hegeton et ii acras terre vocatas holland et ii acras et tres partes unius acre vocatas Flothame. Et debet ad terminum sancti Andree xiid. q. de redditu assise. . . . Willielmus atte Mede tenet de predicta Dola iii acras terre et dimidiam, viz., ill partes unlus acre iacentes iuxta mesuagium Michaelis Galyot et i acram terre et dimidiam iacentes iuxta hegetownys et i acram terre et quartam partem unius acre iacentes in holland. Et debet ad terminum sancti Andree vd. q. de redditu assise. . Johanes Northene tenet de predicta Dola i acram terre et dimidiam iuxta hegetownys versus australem. Et debet. . Ricardus de Northene tenet in predicta Dola iiii acras terre, viz., i acram et dimidiam terre vocatas Seadfeld et lil partes i acre iacentes iuxta hegetownys et i acram et iii partes i acre terre vocatas holland. Et debet. . . . Johanis Symon de Newcherche tenet de predicta Dola iiii acras terre, viz., ili partes unius acre vocatas longereche et i acram et dimidiam vocatas Seadfeld 1 Cf. above, p. 287. 544 APPENDIX V et iacram et quarta pars [sic] unius acre terre iacentem in holland et dimidiam acram iacentem iuxta. Et debet. . Robertus Londer tenet de predicta Dola quartam partem i acre terre vocatam longereche iuxta feodum Sacristie ecclesie Christi Cantuarien- sis. Et debet. . Johanes Pundherst tenet de predicta Dola tres partes i acre vocatas longreche. Et debet. . Heredes hamonis Baron tenent de predicta Dola i acram terre et dimidiam iuxta mesuagium Roberti Salmon versus australem. Et debent: 2). Gilbertus de Morton tenet de predicta dola ii acras terre iacentes in Holland. Et debet. . ‘ Heredes Laurentii Holde tenent de predicta dola ii acras terre et tres partes unius acre, viz., dimidiam acram terre iacentem iuxta Regiam stratam de Northene et i acram et dimidiam in mesuagio Roberti Salmon et tres partes i acre in mesuagio Johanis Salmon vocatas Reye- town iuxta stratam. Et debent. . Ricardus Tomelyn tenet de predicta Dola i acram et iii partes i acre iacentes iuxta mesuagium Roberti Salmon versus occidentem. Et predictus Ricardus defendit heredibus laurentii Holde quartam partem unius acre terre iacentem iuxta stratam. Et debet. . Heredes Henrici de Bonyngton tenent de predicta Dola i acram terre et tres partes unius acre vocatas terra[m] Gryffyn et iacet iuxta Sande- lyne ex parte boriali. Et debent. . Johanes Freland tenet de predicta Dola viii acras terre iacentes in Holland. Et debet. . Summa acrarum istius Dole xl acre unde portio cuiuslibet acre per annum. vd. ob. de redditu, mala, et serviciis. Et plus in toto, viz., ad Natalem Christi i gallum, ii gallinas, et ob. q. de redditu Regis. Dimidia Dola Mawgeri iacet in Newcherche et in marisco de Ro- mene et inter Dolam Godewini supradicti et Dolam Storni et capitat ex parte australi ad regiam stratam que ducit a cruce Johanis Cobbe usque Northene et predicta dimidia Dola continet xx acras terre. Et debet. . . . Summa viiis. iid. ob. q. Heredes Thome Baker tenent de predicta dimidia Dola v acras terre et ili partes unius acre. Et debent. . Adam Osbarn tenet de predicta Dola ix acras et dimidiam acram terre, viz., APPENDIX V 545 ili acras terre iuxta Twynenton versus North et iii acras in ii peciis iuxta Twynenton versus South et ili acras et dimidiam acram terre iacentes iuxta terram Radulphi Claverynge versus South. Et debet. . Idem Adam pro Claverynge de predicta dimidia Dola tenet i acram et iii partes unius acre terre iacentes iuxta predictam terram Ade Osbarne versus North. Et debet. . Heredes Ricardi Pundherst tenent de predicta dimidia Dola iii acras terre vocatas Twyneneton que fuit quondam mesuagium Hamonis Wodman. Et debent. . Summa acrarum istius dimidie Dole xx acre Unde portio cuiuslibet acre per annum vd. ob. de redditu assise, mala, et serviciis. . Alia dimidia Dola Mawegeri iacet in Newcherche in marisco de Ro- mene inter Dolam Godewyni supradicti et Dolam Storni et capitat ad terram Radulphi Claveryng versus North et ad terram Nicholai de Bonyngton versus South et continet predicta dimidia dola xx acras terre iacentes coniunctim. Et debet. . . . Summa vs. iid. ob. Johanis Northene tenet in predicta dimidia Dola de terra Ricardi Elys vi acras terre et | perticas iacentes iuxta terram Adam Osbarne ex parte australi et iiii acras de terra Ricardi Gryffyn iacentes iuxta predictas vi acras terre ex parte australi et iii acras terre de terra Ricardi Elys iacentes iuxta predictas _ iitacras. Et debet. . Heredes Henrici Bonyngton tenent de predicta dimidia dola i acram terre et ili partes unius acre terre iacentes iuxta Sandelyne versus North et ilill acras terre vocatas Sandelyne et 1 acram terre et iii partes unius acre terre vocatas Borefeld que lacent iuxta predictam Sandelyne versus australem. Et de- bent. . Summa acrarum istius dimidie Dole xx acre unde portio cuiuslibet acre per annum ilid. q. Dola Storni iacet in Bylsington et in Newcherche et in marisco de Romene ex parte boriali et australi ad Regiam stratam que ducit a cruce Johanis Cobbe versus Northene et continet predicta Dola xlii acras terre unde viii acre terre et quarta pars unius acre iacent coniunc- 546 APPENDIX V tim in Bylsyngton et xxxiii acre terre et tres partes unius acre iacent in Newcherche. Et debet predicta dola.... Summa xviiis. 1d.q. Item in predicta dola sunt iiii vetera mesuagia. . Johanis Pundeherst tenet de predicta Dola in Bylsington iii acras iacentes ex parte north iuxta pontem malegare. Et in Newcherche xxii acras terre et dimidiam acram, viz., ili acras terre et quartam partem unius acre iacentes ex parte australi ad Wychysland et ii acras terre et tres partes unius acre vocatas Wychysland et i acram et tres partes unius acre vocatas Wylespot et fuit quon- dam mesuagium Johanis de Northene et v acras terre et dimidiam acram terre iacentes ex parte North iuxta predictam Wylespot et viii acras terre et quartam pars [sic] unius acre de terra Edwardi Freland iacentes in Holland. Et debet. . Heredes Richardi Pundherst tenent de predicta Dola iii acras et dimidiam acram terre iacentes in Newcherche ex parte occiden- taliad Wychysland et fuit quondam mesuagium Roberti de Northene. Et debent. . Gilbertus de Morton tenet de predicta Dola in Bylsyngton in mesua- gio Roberti atte hope i acram et dimidiam vocatas Barattispot iacentes iuxta regiam stratam de Northene versus North. Et debet. . Heredes Ricardi Thomelyn defendunt de predicta Dola Johani Bordon i acram terram et dimidiam iacentes in Bylsyngton iuxta terram prioris de Bylsyngton vocatam mentere versus West. Et debent. . Ricardus Baker pro Petham tenet de predicta Dola in Newcherche i acram et tres partes i acre terre vocatas Bradfeld iacentes inter ter- ram vocatam Hegemede et terram Johanis Pundherst. Etdebet... . Heredes Thome Baker tenent de predicta Dola in Newecherche v acras terre vocatas Hegemede et fuit quondam mesuagium Hamonis atte Hope iacentes iuxta Stormstrete ex parte Est et predicti heredes defendunt heredibus Roberti Holde ii acras vocatas similiter Hege- mede iacentes in Newcherche iuxta Stormstrete ex parte Est in uno campo continenti ii acras terre et dimidiam et predicti heredes Thome Baker defendunt Henrico atte Neshe i acram et quartam partem unius acre iacentes in Bylsington iuxta terram prioris de Bylsyngton voca- tam mentege vel secundum quosdam lonekyns acre. Etdebent. . Prior de Bylsyngton tenet de predicta Dola in Bylsyngton unam acram terre vocatam mentege vel . . . Lonekynes acre. Et debet. . APPENDIX V 547 Summa acrarum istius dole xlii acre terre unde portio cuiuslibet acre per annum vd. q. Dimidia Dola de Westbrege iacet in Newcherche et in marisco de Romene ex parte orientali et occidentali ad Regiam stratam que ducit a Bylsyngton usque Newcherche et continet predicta dimidia Dola xxii acras terre. Etdebet. . . . Item in predicta dola est unum vetus mesuagium . . . et debet. . Johanes Pundeherst tenet de predicta dimidia dola iii acras terre in duobus campis vocatis Longefeld iacentes iuxta Stormistrete versus occidentem et iii acras terre vocatas Stretefeld iacentes ex parte orien- tali iuxta Regiam Stratam. Et debet. . Heredes Ricardi Pundherst tenent de predicta dimidia Dola ix acras iacentes ex parte occidentali ad Regiam stratam, viz., vi acras terre vocatas morefriztege et iil acras vocatas litle- friztege. Et debent. . Heredes Edwardi Godard tenent de predicta dimidia dola iiii acras iacentes ex parte orientali ad Regiam stratam, viz., - jacram vocatam Hegespot et fuit quondam mesuagium Johanis atte Bregge Et ii acras iuxta predictas ii acras et i acram vocatam Hegespot [sic]. Et debent. . Heredes Ricardi Thomelyn tenent de predicta dimidia Dola ii acras terre iacentes ex parte orientali ad Regiam stratam. Et debent. . Summa acrarum istius dimidii Dole xxii acre unde portio cuiuslibet acre per annum vd. de redditu assise, mala, et servicis. . Dola de Kyngessnothe iacet in Bylsyngton et in Newcherch et in marisco de Romene ex parte orientali et occidentali strate que ducit a Bylsyngton usque molendinum Ricardi Staple et continet predicta Dola xlvi acras et dimidiam acram terre unde in Bylsyngton sunt xiiii acre terre et tres partes unius acre terre et in Newcherch sunt xxxi acre et tres partes unius acre terre. Et debet. . Heredes Jacobi de Kyngessnothe tenent totam predictam Dolam unde in Bylsyngton sunt xiiii acre et tres partes unius acre terre, viz., ix acras et dimidiamacram terre vocatas Nessland iacentes ex parte occidentali strate supradicte iuxta mesuagium Radulphi Wole- wyke et lili acras et dimidiam acram terre vocatas Pykottismede iacentes ex parte occidentali strate supradicte iuxta terram Johanis Pundherst vocatam Pykottismede. 548 APPENDIX V Item predicti heredes tenent tres partes unius acre terre vocatas Alderwynisland iacentes ex parte orientali strate supradicte iuxta Seadfeld et fuit quondam mesuagium Roberti de Kyngessnothe. Item predicti heredes tenent de predicta dola in Newchurch ex parte orientali strate supradicte xxxi acras terre et tres partes unius acre terre, viz., vii acras terre vocatas Redmede iacentes iuxta Alderwynisland et v acras terre vocatas Hokydefeld et ii acras et tres partes unius acre terre vocatas longehamme et vi acras et dimidiam acram terre vocatas marketfeld et unam acram et quartam partem unius acre terre iacentes in alia pecia iuxta predictam Marketfeld et ii acras et dimidiam acram terre vocatas Petfeld et ii acras et dimidiam acram terre in alia parte iuxta predictam Petfeld et tres partes unius acre terre vocatas Hegetown et ii acras et dimidiam acram terre vocatas Bachousefeld et i acram terre vocatam homstalle iacentem iuxta stratam pre- dictam versus orientem. Et debent. . Summa acrarum istius Dole xlvi acre. . 549 APPENDIX VI = s+ — nWwMmnn (1) $2 ‘Ds ‘ayAL]D 40a (1) @ (2) I (f) © (€) z 931035) ‘uewyog inywy ty z z ey $ (2) WY (e) 5 = (¥) ¥2 Eat eH) ere (ieee as (z) 2 (Dae ans OA Ae (¥) ¢t (@) 1 ee (i) at : (1) % (2) & (1) r (¥) fe (£) (Oe MO) ONS) (01) ¢8 (9) S$ (4)§4 (11)Hrr (at) tr (S) Eat (EL)EOD (0) ev 1(0)) 46 (8) er (4) (8) 1 (9)§8 (6) 76 (z) @ (8) 48 (or) ¥gt (g) Sz (01) or = (St) $81 : @) 8 ms (1) $1 (1) It * (1) ¥s of . (1)r (t)oz (1) ¥ (2) (¥4] (&) [$2] . . . “* (1) cz re oe Cy oe HS (S$) 41 . . . oa (¥) £71 S ; ‘i (1) (z) 2 stioxn “quay “quay stioxn “*bsy aint ‘souof ‘ad101g amt “quo, ueon,A usayde3g ‘ping “ULM, ‘QuAeg uyof sjueuay, 94} Aq pay sjaoreg pur sarioy jo Joqunyy | * g oe of t if oe SOUT (29) 5 pest ten )ea ie etn 9) daniel 9 (Z) t (1) 28 eye ; (inte. G)ine “* . “* . . (1) g (1) 4 ; (1) ¢ ; 28 SEEN OES = (z) t (1)% Se l(D) ees ae ce(2)s Stas (), (€) §@ (1) ¢ sie (Ua Cea) fain (2) eaten (@) i Ch) He pe) ae a(S) Caen (Can (G). EO) CIO Se (EL exten (WA) ot (¥) © (€) @ (t)z (2) t (5)EE (5) #2 (9) 9 (Oe (€) #2 °° (tr) FO (€) Fe ie Src (E) Be Sieen() RECS) to (ZL) cae (DEE of oa s. o. . (1) v . oe rc “* . oa . (1) $1 . (1) Zz . “* of . - qywsg pur, sdj09g SIIOxn JS “pla *yua4) ‘soy. yonyD WOT ent oyj,O10q ‘awWoIgQ ‘Ady UL ‘qyug omg Aieyy -IeyD “yueg *0a4) [oogt *9] SANVHL WAMOT AHL dO NISVE AHL NI aS (1) 21 o% (z) $1 (1) § (a) Sa (Z) $5 (Z) $2 (z) 4 (1) 1 urur -y0g AIUI} aS teeterseseees ganqsed Jo sasoip vsssessss+ mopvaur [pjay uado| teeeeesss gumog yynos seye yogs ysnqAey; say J, ions anc vssessss qroroueg S94 yjorourg 4seq uMoq WoYS “** umMOg 3U0'T W048 Pies Seu ROD Buoy sqvysunqg JaMo'yT _ roddy * Zuopiny younyD ayecararlrenice Fete e eee eeees ggg outed ay} uodn 3uryyng 30Ys ay,L, Aakers ee aa YOR|SAIOUL OF SUT -peay Aemysry oy} uodn suryynqg PIl9} JOMOT AY} Ul JOYS I9MO] BY], “595 Ofay 07 AevMysry 9y} uodn Suryynq 330Ys VY yourq sarjAeq ay} uodn 3urq4Nnq ploy JOMOyT ay], By alete teteaeetotentee - yqray ofa Toho Feeesseesss gioqaxog Suo)any [yo Suoypiny ayied SuopAny Buoy > PIPE OY JO SUOISIATC, ‘obi-v£1 “y ‘for “g "JW “AY puey — ATAANG ‘GNOWHOIY SVITV ‘NAXHS ISA, GNV MAY S('IAIA-dIHSNMOL UVINDANUL ALVALSATI HOIHM SATAMAS NvadOovl GNV WOdAL AO SATAVINNWAS IA XIGQNdddV wo 0) Oe APPENDIX VI ole wie a +0 + MOprayy uOUIWIO-) §50 “sacred XIS UT 5 *sjaoied aay UT » *sjaoied UaAaS UT ¢ *sjaored OM] UT *spaoied gary} UT 1 Q Wor sautATyH ‘S play puy zs 9 “an > 411 £¢ z ploy Spur[Moy Sy af ¥ os g hie a Rs, 8 ae . bod ¢ oe £y Siete «0 @ Py &% A ba 8 Sine 6 «a8 Z - ¢ ra o- oe ee if eeereccee . . ee ¢ . 8 Play ovuuay, “tr pay aepyory[gq at ai ¢ $4 ppey ayoo1g ,‘z1 ‘spfey Buoy + ppayg woyy ;‘211 spurjsuoT “3 ¢ oe. San VI £ Zz ¢ FOL WOpaao’y ‘z ppeg [TYPUrA, * he te os ie z ‘ § aye “FI play eyooig e : ; r8x spjay Bu07] ‘Fg Ate f ie : dea ta |: ¥6 qJoIOSOWIAIN) 9 6 gol : g cere eeee z z ¢ £1 I ppy pug fz 19 ae ¢ t Pe a ee ee z ee ee ¢ & % ppy-yoinyy ‘kg yor9sauAI fe up ei 8 2Er - SNodUrTaSI PAL PlePy proig uojduioig, ayooIqoFY = ALO] V ‘ystq ‘PIN ‘quiy Sian c pasopuy SppPly uouuoy usdg ay} ur aqriy J ‘sef Or ‘1£-o1 ‘yf ‘giz “g ‘JW “AY pur'y AMIHSGYOALAAF[ ‘SNITIOD ANV ‘syooudsOND ‘SIvH#oaH], JO AONVI, ‘INOHSAHD eee “Ul ‘soutArn ‘095 MipLacspehsveralcenny ‘QSUl[IV T, ‘Vv Fhe di Set Dy et at bo) “Ul ‘s}10g “POI bie a ess “UL ‘ZV uyof "UL {19][MOD “YY SIOMIOX aa aa psojopyiny 19s0y Chin eyo "u ‘suIT[OD “MPO OC Oe Lat) “we ‘SUuIT[OD “Mp Rhee jostuiy ‘Aoijing Rie) Genel alee w “IIIS “IDIN pisces ‘ul ‘9YOO) 1930 0 awe was “Ul OH 1930 XY p44 ee br eRe “UW ‘ssuruuof ‘We “sur “ues ‘U0JION “SOUT, Sm) (ase ‘ua3 ‘IAIIO UM siapfoyaseaT 551 APPENDIX VI I yooysyoag I £ ppey swo1ig I ie £ : $1 Ply Ped I wre) ve ze ; £/ ZI Z © pyeey SIIOH es 8 u £ z FE sypoysny 4 s & I £ ppe9ped € ¥ £1 Squoj}S yg I $1 ppeay Hae s £9 qr I Pa2J S}09S ¢ sees c ¢ g qI © ppay yornyD a $9 ay : pa08 zy az aS ¥/ 4z fy sees . ¢ . ¢ I 9 2a ms ¥g (sjoored S$) €1 (spaored z) 9 QI £ ¢, OOSIIBUL SNOSUPT[ASI AT PPy 297 PP 20 apAy I aspaysueryT ainysed aqriy ousewi Uy ,, = mee =< pasopuy SppPly uouumog uedoO sy} ur afqriy Tsefz ‘Sgr—-o11 ‘yf ‘ozz “g ‘J “ADY pueyT XASUIGAIPY ‘NOLINOWaY a ** uspay[eM ‘SOUL, “Ul “UIPYIOIS “YOY Se uw ‘somMVp] SopordyT ee ee eee "UI ysl ‘of Oo odo “ul ‘wReyoH “1GOX ee eee ‘Ul Z ‘IOpOIg ‘of onl s)ieibgel ses, @ Aeiry ‘soul “tur @ Syneviqeys ‘souy, dono oo ‘Ww ‘UdIMO BUIP IN ‘ut ‘IaAyOO'T ‘qoor[ DOU Ob 0 “Ww “yWWS uM Condo DoS ul ‘AI}SY *1QOX siapjoy Ado) APPENDIX VI 552 “ES “WapIiq! aisaz BSN !£Q ‘pylay aqWWWT {oz ‘aqorpaid ata 937d Iyel0q xa esnpout Jadnu 21103 einad {4 ‘ueyUIe,y snsi9A WeyUadis v aQUIONp aIvaA 9] ur +€ ‘sapqid say sary, '€z ‘souMO( sa] {EE ‘szJoINJOA\ {FIT ‘sprvd 2] ISMOT[OJ SV SI pjay YyIedar1aq pur ppey eusoOYy ALP ul Surpjoy siyy yo aqvre oy} yo uorwoyioods ayy y « WAPI! YIIFY 2] 39 stdwvd snqranwuwo0d ut sii9av snqrawo osd ainjsed vruMuWod ,, vary syuRUAT, By ee 1 §Sz a ‘ip oe tar ad ((¢, PL SBORIONs) eee “sess upuAlog ‘of “* ececccce ee g ee g es ¥ 58) 6156 ee ue ne ‘wl ‘{yepuey ‘of eet. sane Oe SLA eats ae gb spjey WOUTUIOD Ino} asay} UT L Pee su “YotIpoory “wWpy + I pagieadsug = yyedasaqy pure FL +6 af £z (OIE Oe COO ‘wu ‘roysty “of t Ff Bulpey apy v4 ri oe o1 Zof ++ ww ‘Surppoy royjoys1ayO £ —-¥gz oUMO 2y pur PHF apry > 3 e eg ior ae ‘wr ‘ueurArag “of £z £ spnjg roddg ‘t asvag 9] z z £ oa II fog ep “Ud “IOITEM “IGOY SEEM et este aac Na ¢ gz I ¢ : eee” ‘ur ‘aydjoy “ur gay eee Ie ue zg Il 4 ¢ PAB ap wane cs es “UW “JUS eypIqesy MOpPa yy SNOSURTIISIT peg PPg PPy PPywsaW sINYseg aqray taewnysny uouWWI07) yyedaivaq = ]JaMprge aUIOYIMETT pesopouy — Spjaly wourmoy uedg ay} ur afqviy I ‘se{9 “oo1—$ “yy ‘ooz “g "WW “Ady puey — aMIHSWVHONINONG “TVAOY WVHNUV, Tt I t Are a eee ERE Ty aa ey See” ; {t Eth titres tester ppeeteeeteees es ee € I € z z fy z 1 FCT ORION OTOBCHC ECHOES. UCROC MOS ICs WOIOmCy. MCR EC RC Tet hurts PC c ‘UI ‘uossAy) ‘of £S of of of 8 Wb thie Fe) 8) eS ew BOR Re eb Ole UB) wih won bedip: whlas enh) eakite. i “UL ‘SUDIMP’T *‘pey o* Qz of ze v 5.0 Vie en eye) 26-0 We: 6).e eke ke bat Reo 56 Rta ws "ul ‘sqrzoqqoy “ULM £¢ fy i eer err ee PSV an cel V cel.s 0.08), o MONS, Wp tale MaiacNr sce N/R akbon Be th Peaopaqya AA eysiydeg I o-. I & Oy See) OC Rae \sVe8) Se) 8 8) 4m 60a. 6. By ede cee GON. Ad Et Ae bk ee "UI ‘IMO T, ‘sou t I I v £y (ainqsed) SI ‘Sy Oe Wie ele we aks @ bd’ oe be 6 6.8 See Be Se we ek "Ww ‘saqqny, roydoysiy)a £o1 *6 a4 (poom) ez ‘Bz 6'6'e'9 006 Bie 6) A ee ie aw Sle eee ee Buk 0. ane Gre Boma th, "UW ‘Qpvay “PIA r z fy v Slee 6, O18 0.6.4 bi RS 6S fb UO. 850.0 bos oy Oh W0; 0 26 0. ‘Ww ‘pIaopaqiaM “YY MOpPa PpPy awopy PPY app PPy Jayqny pasopouy siopjoyAdog > ES Spjely Uomo, uadG ut s[quiy I ‘sef[z ‘gor-gé ‘y ‘ozz "g ‘Jy “AoY pur] — xasataalpy, ‘WVHLTA] 553 APPENDIX VI -oysiowy[Ng ‘yses1v] ay} YY Jo pur ‘(qzor J) UDATS ST 4ST] B YOM Jo ¥ a4 ges | v SI $ | | te ge MOPRaT, uowUwo,) ‘JOULW JY} JO SUOWIWIOD ay} UT ‘ainqsed Jo sjYyst1 pey sjueUsz oy} ‘selov COI poureyUod ‘ayjaY £ srayong £1 £ z 9 4 @ soley] PIeMuy } 6 Go a0 én ¢ S 6 IT asuIpay qsa\y ‘Fz adurpay £ ssurpay 91s9\ oa cs ay I I z I ajppidsyooig z ssuIpAY ‘z pyey [Ise v z oI ¢ Yoo oy} I ayfoura, ‘© syprqusarsy | £¢ : Ee KoPDN 2H) -8 : £ uAureypeyy ‘€ asurpAIpjoyy ) £ wivyAuoys ‘*£ a1owaspayy on oe, ae ate . ¢ for .. £ aiowaspay ‘© sapAvyy 9 I asUIpAY 9389, seen ee £ ¢ £e v . . 20) : <4 zt $s II : : t ‘pul z ‘poo z ‘Z [[ayssarg § $1 9 pee POLELOCe G0 I z z +e I SasUIpvasysaM 26 I I $s oe snoauryfaost [y PPS) PPG = PPY Suey aysIa PPP PLAY sospny paeyoiQ jppPaA eAuojG -uag “ym sAwaq ivyD e}e(0) SBF) Sppery wowwog usedg ay} ur sqeiy [2a] *€L—99 “yf ‘coz “g “J “AO purvyT ‘oadsuy) aUHsSIAaAg ‘THSYANNAAA JO ONIHILT, ‘SNINNOS “SP]PY. ey} JOAO d1Nysed Jo UOUIUIOD 0} JDUAIAJAI OU St 910], JA I “ur ‘sudToD 3q0y ‘JA § Cur ‘preudryy “UA poom puv ir ****** "JA I “uw ‘yyOMSOg BID poom 1 QI * [AT “ur ‘quad ‘sddipiyg 3qoy OL ¢° Ae ur“ yuas ‘sddiyryg "3qoy 9 t+ sess TK @ “af ‘aprogayg "1qoy aye) “1k & OI Boone v } “ur ‘aAaTaIIY MA AYAPPL 100ul a £6 testes qh Cun ‘oneg oydey ‘poom z poom’ §6r tt? yA 1 Our ‘yJasy sousy * JA z Cur ‘aployeys Jopwepy 8+ TAX Cur ‘prlopyoIN “soy, Pes L trees TA £ Cul ‘QyoepRayy “WAY S Ir ct JA T Our ‘wepAy ouvyoe ‘yseq ‘qviy syuvuay, Arewoysng pasopuy APPENDIX VI 554 *(g0Q *J) 9prew ssuru -UOS Ul 9MOD 9UO IOJ puv aYsIOW sAVAING Ul YO][Ng & puv sysveq Yio ,, OJ UOWIWOD sey pIOJSuLT YJoquzi{q Jey} Sl a1Nysed yo UOWTWIOD Noe JUWID}v}s A]UO 9yT, nN I Ol RI Ie Rice NN + + HH St HM ole 6 MOpRa uoww0,) eee eee Z 9 £¢ zS St “. ae © Bis 10 @.6.6 5 v 41 z¢ “. . ee £ yVIOMAIVg a. Z 1 £9 sg it z yee ee £ &z I g oe . g wee cease 4 sd tv I x t OI apjey Aeming as $i £z ; sere eee z I £1 £9 eee eee o. - ppg dq pue + I saspry ‘f yjasua Ay £¢ Zor 8 I pjay Aappoo A, + z z g z { € JgUIOD BURAP VW } : : er ¢ I ]JeEMoxONg 3eIaIH eee eee * . . . ¢ Trt f 9 eo L oI ger gs 2g | $ ]Pamoxong yea SNosUETaosIjy Pry Prey peg PPY ‘sodsu—) “3S¥q ‘quiy oe aysiowmyng auMOd ddy aq): pasopugq Spjety uourmo0s uadQ ay} Ut aqeiy [21a] “99-25 “y ‘coz “g “WW “Ady pueT WaIHSHuaAg “ONINNOS JO ONIHITT, V ‘ONINNOS stees TK £2 Gur z ‘surpoynzy sousy eee eee ‘14 z Sur ‘ToyIVg asoiquiy ee ‘A it UT ‘QAOIDAO'T ‘sour PT eOeC i: ee iecat ic ‘A I “uy ‘AOWWAO'T uyof “ur “ques ‘uioyy, ‘soy, “ur “ques ‘ouIOyy, ‘Souy, 14 § Sw ‘oqeig ydrey TA § “Ur “SoqTe AA “TEMA ‘JA I “ur “Tayop,.J “SOUL, ‘JA & “ur ‘propyporg Moipuy z T I SPE Or: ‘JA I Sur ‘proysur’y *z151 wieNeueuette ele te terene 14 rd ‘£10S01‘) uyof Salis) at oknnthgiar a ‘A 1 “uw ‘suepy 3qoxy tueuinysng 555 APPENDIX VI ee Vv z EY ZI : £9 ¥ Zz tI fy ¥ z tI gy $ 8 ae . ¥ z T tl x z & T Zz ¥ t 1t T If I I £ v MOPPI, snoauryjao woww0) -SIT THEY -u0UI9 A, PIeg SOM - 0 moO a ey JAIN) 7) (NY ie) (Gi nin ayoog Al Nn - min hve) z Vv Pies Ploy Ree. qyorisaysy AaT ueueg MORO IR IN auapetieyy — TA ‘py & SPP uow07 uadg ay} ul afquiy GaTHSadaOrxO ‘WVHSYAAV)D “So-gt “y “Ogi “g “WW “AoY purty ay tos £9 tet zo Zor &% Sz Sr 9 1S ty pesopougy “BIA I ur ‘Vay ‘SOUT, "ssrA @ “ur {nde jy sousy “BA 1 “ur ‘AaIMOTT “Of ‘B11A @ “Ww ‘uIOy], euUeYyot “os Bra € Cur Fpeazy sniqag 8 BIA @ SUL TPMTV BIPID “B11A @ “ur ‘suouef BDITy “BNA I “ur ‘raAMeg AlUaP] “BITA I “ul “oyyeTesuy “YI sae “BILA v “UT Bale 99T NY “BIA @ “ut SAaBMOT “ZI sor Birra b Cur ‘purypery uyof trewinysng APPENDIX VI 556 *rayjoue Aq oI ‘Adod auo Aq saioe + ce PIPJ WOTIVM SEITE, 1 “(bs £2 °Y) ,, SWPMY op sidurvo snqrunwuros ur,, a1nysed Jo uouWOD pajuNs aary ssappoyAdog £ sjJoIg ‘I uspie AA 94} ee e g 3 2.0 case ae o* iT £Q £21 eee esos oar ZI 8 £Q AC at Me : . v Zz ¢ ey a see ad S Si t Ply \ : “YStH “2 pjej awoyeayyywy “9 play ewoyyweig I uapieA, ey} ‘FZ pay iso I Ol £9 Z UaPIL AA 24} “FS PJ} ISOM “FF Ply WINS as g PX te f PIP} O4VT ‘1 yadyvoy ‘br play ysey ‘Or pay ystzT at6rm, 6 a0e7r.'e I Z v L (,, 24193 vised ,,) $1 ploy oI BS ean are gf zt I v bite, iS ees “* ¢ £1 Vv II p[lej uoysuisuag ‘Egr pylay yog ‘ZL Aa SI L £ PLO} [PARID “Fr pyloy sey = i Oz pyley YstH ‘oz pyiey yotuseg ‘oz ppley yseq ; ee ¢ Z I Z snoaury[a ast PRY i PPY PY PRY sAapun]y younyd 21PPLN aAOINy spPly uowwo) uedgQ ay} ut aquiy I ‘sef{9 TUIHSaYOIXxO ‘WIAM ‘SL—-1 “y ‘Q8£ “GW “JO “Sny ‘yoxy on 8 T ere rf : ¥ hy 8 Me Tee AZ ¥ le y 8 aati ¥ T ¥ T 4Z oe oe id T r z Tose ot oe b2 T git I Ce & ‘4seq ‘qriy pasopug @) pseu cer webs sey Te uyof eee eee ay ‘aaidg a0uepnidg SECRRCCRES 4 ‘T[auayy vuueyolt Opinio oleic cou “UL ‘SUIyV uyof Bacec-cecerut) ‘Wu ‘awed IIe 320.9 eis Lene ‘Ul ‘pueppng “MPO ohe 0 @0e's eel ae “Ul ‘qqoN ‘oe oa @ M@tene @ “wl ‘JOUIL “UM, TRG OO SERORENC “Ul ‘yqnos ‘SOUL Sie >) asses ciets “UL ‘uoxog oh | as twice: 9,019 “UL ‘TTamod piece) "***q]09 ‘ques ‘syueg ‘soul, « 0 eters «tate 6 "UL ‘STTTIM. ‘soul « 0, aap oh e's “Ul ‘uoxog WAM ute Sieve te «5 “Ww ‘SOTTAAA ‘SOUL ie) (0 @, RSA fe eae “Ww ‘IA “YPN winapls! wns *3J0} ‘Qp10 J uyof x ay ae oI ZI £6 or £Y 411 oz Yr S131 19309 7 uJapjAVg UOUIS ¢ o1eassog oe oe oe oe o. if g Z g g OO Oro 6 "Ul ‘uspo[quie yy UM SNOIULTIIIST Peg Pre PRY PPS Pry Ty PIP ‘yseq “qriy navuinysnd WH Tea4qsg sexeqmoy) = 4seq S[PPHA eUMOpsuIspy 1 (@) qodd) pesopuy Spel, uouuro) edo ay} Ul aquiy Tsef9 ‘€z-1 y ‘zoz gq "J “Ady pueyT WaIHSauOIXO ‘NOLONITLYM APPENDIX VI 558 to} f2 eplegy awoy ysnoioqie A ‘F [ITH 2] Eapy ayomnyy ‘F apury azjois | 9 PI} W3tH ¥£ apple ewoy ‘Z S}JOID 2 Z pylay aysam ayoleg ‘I pay “Pq edoid ‘}1 sapuvjaxorlg adoad ‘z aAvMaaaay adoid z PIe} ewoY WA ‘tf PIs ISAM “2 OP[9A eyoangD I T pte} SoM § epue pury A FI aysnuqitd ‘I yo19AaH { S$ uoqen ‘FY 9 { aysnq sivddagq ‘I sayousavas t tee ween ¢I JI Syolg 2 ul ¥s ES SyOID I Ul i ( 2 SyYOID uo}suIsuag Ul - I Syjorg Yroy ul fl I duly ayvoy pnde MOpRAay snoauryaosiyy uowwo) “aSBalasIOP{ Ul ainjsed JO OM} IO BIDE UL DART SJUCUI] [PIBVAIS ae yer £ $l £1 es er ste . 8 “* $v £9 a4 “-* 8 £1 $e tv I s L I Li zs ; tv t es £ s¢ z $1 z 4¥ ses z $v £ {I z 3 $s AG I Pe ¥s I gI c L $v t I L epuy =spum TIO §=6(sepfley =: BPA -a10J{ 9AUOJS Sapfloy aysvy a] ul ayroy #9 £c1 L yi $2 401 $1 if -dy0d zadnsg SppPlq uouwoy uadgQ ay} ur ayquiy {I Sf £1 I aMOOTS $c ge oF a E gv ye G11 Ze ABM 9] MO} a] UOPUO'T BYXNI aAR]D I IY $1 I §z §1r #s WPM vyxNI PARID 2 ———<—$_$— ‘LT sel bv ‘6z—-S1 -y ‘bzz -g ‘J “AOY pury aUIHSdaOdXQ ‘NOLONISNAG oe. tz oe I EI f s. § BG bz I $1 . GI oe gs ‘4seq ‘qviy pasopugq ‘ginjstd jo uow wos ZuIpivsa1 aprul st JUIUII}eIS ON ee “wl ““U0xXO Ul “UOXY MFa]]OD sarejoos ja 10}90y eee “Ww ‘JOY JVIMATIOFA, “sOuL “+ “ul ‘putyyong vueyy ya vioUTaTT o.dG80 8 + -S11A 1 Cu ‘yepAry uyof ‘WI ‘UOJZUISUag ap atsapoq unsn pe “ur “YQAWIS “YOIN, “UW ‘1919}B MA “ONY Oe *WW09 z “Ww ‘UeWaIIy ‘SOUL W109 ‘oduljMvg souuvyof “3709 “UI ‘WJaUUAg “soy, * soyzeva\ ‘J Jednu ‘aAouuag ‘0a SR HONS 2ST SR ‘yoo £ “wi ‘aAouuag ‘0a wi ‘apjoury “340% “Ww CuIy ‘anosaq10,g “SOU, s9}U9U9} 119qU'T Ses) APPENDIX VI FIA RIN Ri Bt: + mist H maanct -: it Olt rica HON Zz 5 a MOpPayl uoUIUIOD ccSPIAL P1OJSUIPIYS 39 soyouYT ur ‘apyfey ouUaTT ur “T[PUMOT, ef Jodns ‘aAv][Q apfo 2] UL ‘aP|!O} TLYSEAHYD UL ‘apyloy [oIsoD a uy “21a ‘[rouvur pesos B SUM YINosOqIeM] Waplqt sFoy rurwop snqryusue, wns syZnosoqiv AM, ap situnuIUOD yo sidurvd UT sNqIAO Ja sysaqiay}OY Os ,, UOWIWOD Avy OF FYANO PAOJsUNTTIYS JO «, SNULULIG ,, 94} IVY} payejs St Ft (COT “J) YSnor0q1e MA JO sUOWTUTOD oY} JO 4sI] B UT QI Spied pr0jsulTTYS colt H eS anmao Ale AIA Ait AI it i it ~ Ww PPG aprayl Oe & I £¢ ou & £¢ L ax Sy I L us 5 a zy ee £¢ z ee I v the I £y 6 61 ge qi 9 $8 e aig S 6 &y ee QI . L v £z 21 £1 g ty i an a iv i L bis v £1 £1 Ploy pue «6 6 1d PPG PP Peg SEN fe) soyoury woH THYSHNYD «= aP[NO 7 ‘ginqsed JO UOUIWIOD 0} SZUIPfOY ay} JO UOI}dLDsap ay} Ul 9dUeJOJaI OU SI aIBY J, TMT EAOT PVE Pies Spear Sppely uowuuwo) uadg ay} Ul aqriy I ‘sefv “6S1-€S1 ‘€€-6z -y ‘vez “g ‘WW “ACY puey FAIHSAGYOIXO ‘HONOMOMAVM . ait Ain ole Oa hear) oOo + | £$ TIO3s9D PO z T ae ; 50 ¥ zl ee Zz T ane Zz Sy z ¥ T £ i : ae z 1 z faeve ee a ue ¥ 8 ti og! ole be Tt g z £ T ‘yseq ‘quiy pasopougq OO ORS 5 0 ‘QAQ]SIG ONY DEO OOOO y 9 ‘qyAuIs uyof Peo oOoU A beyanney (ons (oy iets UT “GOSMIAU ET “Oks "+ 4309 © ‘aqqa My uYyof soquaUd} L8qry Ce ee Cc aqqeM uyot sour} uyo ee} SouEL UHL OOD TH ‘IIING ‘IY wrote ee wire "Ul ‘qqouly ULM, W090 “ut ‘19}I0g ‘ORL ‘ses cur € ‘uoweg uyof "+ *qJ00 ‘ayoueI “Mp * *qQ00 ¢ “UN ‘SITTER AA “ORY ChiL Cera U Lact ‘ut ‘adog uyof Day DION 9 9 ( opie g WM tiewinjysng a - > “ ‘ i Ae ae +] wy tel} tra} ; 4 r a < $ ‘ ii ’ . 2 «rv Ogitrwdh oat ioe) en % 1) ol re? var A ’ r a ¢ R ‘ ‘ a4 i t 7 a + t ‘ a aH . PND + i Seay v) a ee a” Pe, oe a LNW EX Acre, the standard, 19. Agriculture, relation of field systems to, 3, 4, 7-12, 403-409. Alciston, Suss., 33, 34. Alfriston, Suss., 33, 443- All Souls College, Oxford, maps of, 34, 77) 274- Altham, Lancs., 244, 245. Alvingham, Lincs., 31, 441. Anglesey, common arable 183-185. Anglo-Saxon charters, 51-61, 410; laws, 61, 62. Anglo Saxons, 71, 298, 304, 409-411, 418. Ansty, Hants., 33, 443. Arden, forest of, 86, 87. Ashbury, Berks., 31. Ashton Keynes, Wilts., 32, 39, 42, 442. Assart, 85. Aston and Cote, Oxons., 118. Austro, de antiquo, 41, 98. Avon, valley of the, 31, 88. Axholme, Isle of, 103, 532. fields in, Bailiffs’ accounts, 44. Barfreston, Kent, 280, 281. Barking, Essex, 392, 393. Bawdsey, Suff., 334. Bedfordshire, 34, 35, 70, 79, 444. Bensington, Oxons., 387, 558. Berkshire, 30, 31, 60, 61, 63, 70, 553; 554- Bicester, Oxons., 79. Biddletown, Dorset, 80. Bisley, Surr., 364, 365. Blatchington, Suss., 33. Bletchingdon, Oxons., 118. Borga, 33. Boundaries, in Anglo-Saxon charters, 51- 56. Bovates, 41, 42. Bower Henton, Somers., 32, 441. Brailes, Upper and Nether, Warks., 29, 437- Brancaster, Norf., 345, 346. Brandon, East, Durham, 105, 534. Braunton Great Field, Devon, 262, 263. Breighton, Yorks., 103, 531. Brent, East, Somers., 98, 525. Brixham, Devon, 259, 261. Bruton, Somers., 100, 528. Buckinghamshire, 63, 70, 76, 77, 80, 552. Butts, 19, 163. Buxton, Norf., 311, 312. Cambridgeshire, 63, 70, 78. Campi (fields), 13, 21, 28, 39. See Fields. Carnarton, Corn., 263. Castle Acre, Norf., 314, 315. Caversham, Oxons., 386, 555. Celtic system, 157-205; influence of, in England, 266-271, 404, 405, 412-414, 418. Chalgrove, Oxons., 18-23, 124. Charlbury, Oxons., 117. Charlton Abbots, Gloucs., 30, 438. Charters, Anglo-Saxon, 51-61, 410. Cheshire, 64, 404, 412, 414; field system of, 249-258. Cheshunt, Herts., 376, 550. Chester, Chesh., 250-252. Chiltern hills, enclosures in, 119, 120; field system of, 384-387, 401, 417. Christian Malford, Wilts., 101, 5209. Clapton, Gloucs., 89, 517. Clifton, Oxons., 116. Common, or waste, 10, 24, 26, 47, 405, 412-414. Consolidation of open-field parcels, 175, DS AKO, Hoe Convertible husbandry, 7, 8, 58 n., 100. 563 564 INDEX Copyholds, 21-23, 25, 27, 28, 41, et| East Anglia, 48, 416; field system of, passim. Corby, Northants, 44. Cornwall, 63, 404, 412, 414; field system of, 263-266. Corsham, Wilts., 74. Corston, Somers., 100, 528. Cotswolds, the, 29-31, 70, 88-90, 123, 438. Cowpen, Northumb., 222, 223. Crofters, 166-168. Crofts, held in common, 89. Crops, succession of, 44, 45; in Oxford- shire, 124, 125, 129; in Scotland, 158- 160; in Wales, 200; in Northumber- land, 208, 222-225; in Kent, 302; in Norfolk, 318-322, 330, 332, 333; in Suffolk, 331; in Surrey, Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Essex, 396-308. Crown estates, 23. Croxton, Lincs., 26. Culturae, 13, 14. See Furlongs. Culworth, Northants, 80, 477, 482. Cumberland, 64, 404, 412-414; system of, 227-242. Curry Mallett, Somers., 99, 527. Customary holdings. See Copyholds. field Dales, 21, 163. Damerham, South, Wilts., 24. Danes, 71, 298, 304, 352-354, 416. Darliston, Salop, 68. Day’s work, 300, 301. Deal, Kent, 276. Demesne, 8, 24, 28n., 34, 35, 315, 4443 tillage of, 43-46. Denbighshire, 178-183. Derbyshire, 12, 63, 139. Devonshire, 63, 404, 412, 414; system of, 258-266. Disintegration of holdings, 94-97. Dola, 286, 287. Donegal, Ireland, townland in, tor. Dorset, 30, 32, 63, 70, 80, 439, 442. Dragga, 15 0. Drayton, Northants, 78, 477, 482. Durham, 36, 63, 70, 404, 446, 534, 535; irregular fields in, 105-107, 408. field 395-354- Edmonton, Mdx., 381, 382, 551. Eggleston, Durham, 106, 535. Egham, Surr., 362-364. Eloughton, Yorks., 36, 446. Elmdon, George, note-book of, 316-324. Enclosure, by agreement, 116-118, 149-152; piecemeal, 145-148, 310- 312, 407. Enclosure awards, 14,15; for Oxford- shire, 111-114; for Herefordshire, 139- 141, 149, 150; for Norfolk, 305-307. Enclosure maps, 14, 112, and see table of contents. Enclosures, 8-12, 32, 90, 91, 98, Io1, 102, 107, 404-408; in Oxfordshire, 110-132; in Herefordshire, 139-141; in Wales, 172, 173; in Northumber- land, 206, 207; in Cumberland, 227- 229; in Lancashire, 242, 243; in Cheshire, 249; in Kent, 272, 273; in Norfolk, 305-312; in Surrey, 356; in Hertfordshire, 370; in Middlesex, 381; in Essex, 387, 388. Epping forest, 388. Eriung, 335-338, 348, 351. Eskirmaen, Wales, 195. Essex, 12, 404, 416, 417; field system of, 387-394, 400. Evenley, Northants, 78, 478, 482. Every-year lands, 92. Ewell, Surr., 390, 400. Ewelm, Oxons., 116, 387, 556. Extents, 14, 43-47. Falda, 342-344. Faldagium, 342. Farnham Royal, Bucks., 385, 552. Faughs, 159, 232. Feet of fines, 13, 62, 68. Feltham, Mdx., 382, 552. Ferthing, 298. Fields, names of, 42, 43, 69; multiplicity of, 89, 93-97, 101, 146-149, 282, 407. See Campi, Two-field system, Three- field system, Four-field system, Six fields. INDEX Fingland, Cumb., 232. Finmere, Oxons., 118. Fold-courses, 316, 325-329, 341-344, 359- Folds (falds), 159. : Forest areas, 83-88, 119, 120, 138, 407, 417. Four-field system, 88, 103, 104, 125, 126, 135-137, 406. Frampton Cotterell, Gloucs., 91. Freeholds, 21, 24, 27, 35, 40, 41. Frocester, Gloucs., 89, 518. Furlongs, 13, 19, 127, 128, 313- Gamlingay, Cambs., 44. Gavelkind, in Wales, 186, 187, 195-199; in Ireland, 191-194; in Kent, 295, 296; in Norfolk, 335-337. Gavelle (wele), 196-1098. Gedalland, 59, 60, 61. Gillingham, Dorset, 30, 439. Gillingham, Kent, 282-286. Glastonbury manors, 24, 31, 92. Glebe terriers, 119, 134-136. Gloucestershire, 30, 61, 70, 438, 516- 520; irregular fields in, 88-93. Gores, I9, 55. Great Tew, Oxons., 128-130. Guston, Kent, 275. Hamlets, 268, 407, 412; in Hereford- shire, 95, 153; in Scotland, 167, 168; in Wales, 179; in Ireland, 187-189; in Cumberland, 230, 231; in Devon, 260; in Lancashire, 267. Hampden-in-Arden, Warks., 86, 512. Hampshire, 33, 61, 63, 70, 443- Handborough, Oxons., 27, 28, 40, 430- 437- Hanwell, Oxons., 116. Hartley, Northumb., 220, 221. Haverfordwest, Pembrokes., 174. Hayton, Cumb., 232. Headland, 109, 55. Heafodaecer, or headland, §5, 56. Henley-in-Arden, Warks., 87. Hennor, Herefs., 37. Herefordshire, 36, 37, 63-66, 70, 71, 521- 565 523; irregular fields in, 93-97; en- closures in, 139-141; decay of mid- land system in, 139-153, 407, 411, 447- 449. Hertfordshire, 404, 550; field system of, 369-381, 401, 417. Highlands, Scottish, field system of, 161. Hinton St. Mary, Dorset, 32, 442. Hitchin, Herts., 5, 17, 18, 369. Hitching, 132, 133, 134. Holdenby, Northants, 78, 479, 482. Holkham, Norf., 326-330. Holme Cultram, Cumb., 230. Holmer, Herefs., 146. Hoo St. Mary’s, Kent, 277, 278. Horton, Gloucs., 90, 5109. Houghton Regis, Bedfs., 79, 450, 451. Humberston, Lincs., 31, 440. Huntingdonshire, 63, 70. Ilsington, Devon, 260-262. Ine’s laws, 61, 62. Infield, 158-161. Ingleton, Durham, 36, 39, 41, 63, 446. Inhoc, 92, 93. Inquisitions post mortem, 44, 46. Treland, field system of, 187-194. Irregularities in midland area, 83-107, 407. Issacoed, Denbighs., 182. Iugum, 282-298, 304, 351, 352, 399- Ivington, Herefs., 94, 522. Kavels (kenches), 169. Kent, 404, 415, 543-548; field system of, 272-304. Kimbolton, Herefs., 37. Kingham, Oxons., 126. Kingsbury, Somers., 98, 524. Kington, Wilts., 24-26, 40, 42, 421-430. Kislingbury, Northants, 79, 479, 483- Knoll, Warks., 86, 513. Lancashire, 64, 404, 412, 414; field system of, 242-249. Landescore, 261. Lands, or strips, 19. Last, The, Salop, 68. 566 Lazonby, Cumb., 233. Leaseholds, 28, 36, 41. Lectum, 196-108. Leicestershire, 35, 70, 76, 445. Lenton and Radford, Notts., 104, 533. Lesbury, Northumb., 207, 209, 212. Lexham, West, Norf., 314, 317. Leynes, or fields, 33. Leys, or lays, 34, 35. See Meadows. Lincolnshire, 26, 31, 63, 70, 71, 75, 103, 440, 441, 532. Litlington, Cambs., 78, 457, 459. Long Coombe, Oxons., 84, 511. Long Houghton, Northumb., 208-211, 226. Long Lawford, Warks., 78, 500. Lutterworth, Leics., 35, 445. Lynches, 56. Lyng, 328. Manors, in East Anglia, 350-352. Maps, enclosure, 14, 112, and see table of contents; tithe, 14, 15, 18-23. Marden, Herefs., 95-97, 142, 146-148, 150, 153 0. Marshall, William, on Gloucestershire, 91, 92; on the Scottish Highlands, 161; on Norfolk, 307. Marston Sicca, Gloucs., 88, 516. Martham, Norf., 335-3309. Mawley, Salop, 37, 38, 449. Meadow strips in arable fields, 35, 106, 408. Meadows, common, 21, 28, 47. Mercia, early open fields in, 62. Merstham, Surr., 366, 367. Middlesex, 404, 551, 552; field system of, 381-384, 402, 417. Middleton, Herefs., 93, 521. Middleton, North, Northumb., 224, 225. Middleton Stony, Oxons., 117. Midland system. See Two-field system, Three-field system, Six fields. Monmouthshire, 64, 271. Morffe forest, 38. Multiplicity of fields, 89, 93-97, I01, 146-149, 282, 407. INDEX Names of fields, 42, 43, 69. Nasse, Erwin, on Anglo-Saxon fields, 6, 51-61 passim. Newchurch, Kent, 286, 287, 543-548. Newington, Kent, 273, 274. New Shipping, Pembrokes., 175, 176. Niton, Isle of Wight, 102, 530. Norfolk, field system of, 305-354. Normans, 297. Northamptonshire, 35, 61, 62, 63, 70, 78, 79, 80, 444. Northumberland, 64, 74, 404, 412-415; field system of, 206-227. Norton St. Philip, Somers., 99, 526. Nottinghamshire, 70, 533; irregular fields in, 104. Oats, cultivation of, in Scotland, 159; in Wales, 200. Ollands, 319, 320. Ouse, valley of the, 63, 70. Outfield, 158-161, 200, 222, 223, 232. Over Arley, Staffs., 87. Owston, Lincs., 104, 532. Oxfordshire, 18-23, 27, 28, 29, 31, 61, 63, 70, 76, 79, 80, 84, 438, 510, 511, 536- 542, 555-559; irregular fields in, 84-86; decline of midland system in, 109- 137, 407, 408; enclosures in, 110-132. Oxgangs, 36. Oxlynch, Gloucs., 89, 519. Padbury, Bucks., 76. Pasture, common of, 28, 47, 48. Pembrokeshire, 172-178; gavelkind in, 186, 187. Pendicles, 166. Pennard, West, Somers., 99, 526. Perticata, 25. Pickhill and Siswick, Denbighs., 180, 181. Piddington, Oxons., 76, 488. i Plena terra, 345, 392. Ploughing, mediaeval, 8, 9. Poynton, Salop, 67, 68. Precincts, 313, 314, 322. Presthope, Salop, 69. Preston, Northumb., 215, 216. Quarters, 126-130. INDEX Raines, 228. Ramsden, Oxons., 85, 511. Redland district, 128, 131, 133. Residential townships, 121. Richmond, Surr., 365, 366, 549. Riggs, 163, 222, 227-229, 235. Ringstead, Norf., 345, 346. Risbury, Herefs., 37, 144, 145, 447. River valleys, 88-107, 120, 138. Robeston, Pembrokes., 177, 178. Rocester, Staffs., 87, 515. Rolleston, Staffs., 35, 36, 40, 445. Roman influence on field systems, 5, 12, 415, 418. Romsley, Salop, 68. Runrig (rundale), 268, 405, 412-414; in Scotland, 162-167; in Ireland, 191- 195; origin of, 190-199; in Wales, 203. St. Florence, Pembrokes., 176, 177. St. Margaret at Cliffe, Kent, 275. Salford, Bedfs., 34, 41, 43, 46, 444. Scotland, field system of, 157-171, 201, 202. Seebohm, Frederic, description of Hitchin, Herts., 5, 6, 17; on Anglo- Saxon fields, 51-61 passim. Segregation of strips, 234-237, 245. Selions, 19, 89; individually named, 254, 255- Settlement, relation of field systems to, 3, 12, 13, 409-418; types of, see Hamlets. Severn, valley of the, irregular fields in, 38, 88-93, 406, 408. Shawbury, Salop, 69. Shipton-under-Wychwood, Oxons., 42, 438. Shots, 19. See Furlongs. Shropham, Norfolk, 311, 312. Shropshire, 37, 38, 63, 64, 66-69, 70, 71, 138, 411, 449; irregular fields in, 108. Six fields, 17, 21, 35, 40. Somerlie, 319, 324. Somerset, 30, 32, 63, 70, 138, 139, 439, 441, 524-528; irregular fields in, 97- 101. 29; 567 Sonning, Berks., 385, 386, 553, 554- Soulby, Cumb., 232. Staffordshire, 35, 63, 70, 71, 139, 445, 514, 515; irregular fields in, 87. Stewkley, Bucks., 80, 455, 456. Sticca, 59. Stockton, Herefs., 37, 448. Stoke, South, Oxons., 80, 490. Stoke, South, Somers., 30, 39, 439. Stoke Edith, Herefs., 94, 523. Stoke Prior, Herefs., 37, 447. Stonebrach, 131, 133. Stonesfield, Oxons., 84, 510. Stow, Lincs., 75. Suffolk. See East Anglia. Sulung, 299, 300. Surrey, 549; field system of, 355-360, 399, 400, 404, 417. Surveys, 15, 23-25, 27-36, 83-107, ef passim. Sussex, 33, 63, 443: Sutton, Kent, 276. Sutton at Hone, Kent, 277. Syndrig land, 59. Tallantire, Cumb., 239, 240. Tees, valley of the, 105. Tenementum, 300, 334-341, 344, 351. Terriers, 14, 41, 42, 49, et passim; glebe, I1Q, 134-136. Thame, Oxons., 124. Thames, meadow-townships on the, 120; field system of the lower, 355-402. Thorley, Isle of Wight, 102. Three-field system, characteristics of, 17-28, 39-48; townships typical of, 27, 28, 32-36; extent of, 34, 39, 62-71; development of, from two-field system, 72-82, 406; deviations from, 83-107; decline of, 124, 125, 135-138, 142-152. Tithe maps, 14, 15, 18-23. Trent, valley of the, 70, 87, 103-105, 408. Two-field system, characteristics of, 17- 26, 39-48; townships typical of, 24- 26, 29-31; early history of, 50-62; ex- tent of, 62-70; transformation of, into three-field system, 72-82; deviations from, 83-107; decline of, 123-137, 406. 568 Twyford, Leics., 76, 471, 473- Typus Collegii of All Souls College, Oxford, 34, 77, 274- Virgates, 17, 21, 25, 27, 28, 41, 42; in Kent, 298, 2909; in Norfolk, 345-347; in Essex, 391-304. Wales, 64; field system of, 171-187, 200. Walter of Henley, on thirteenth-century tillage, 71. Warborough, Oxons., 387, 550- Warton, Lancs., 245, 246. Warwick, Cumb., 236, 237. Warwickshire, 29, 31, 70, 78, 138, 437, 512, 513; irregular fields in, 86, 87. Watling Street, 70. Watlington, Oxons., 387, 557- Wattles, 329, 342, 343, 405- Weasenham, Norf., 316-326. Welford, Gloucs., 88, 516. Welford, Northants, 35, 41, 42, 444. Wellow, Isle of Wight, 31, 440. Wessex, early open fields in, 62. INDEX Westmorland, 64, 271. Weston Birt, Gloucs., 30, 438. Wight, Isle of, 31, 440, 530; irregular fields in, 102. Willerby, Yorks., 103, 530. Wiltshire, 24, 25, 32, 33, 60, 70, 74, 442, 529; irregular fields in, ror. Wista, 33. Woodstock forest, 84, 85. Wootton, Oxons., 84, 510. Wootton-under-Weaver, Staffs., 87, 514. Worcestershire, 61, 139. Wrentham, Suff., 45. Wrexham, Denbighs., 179, 180. Wychwood forest, 85. Wye, Kent, 287-296. Wye, valley of the, irregular fields in, 93- 97- Wymondham, Norf., 339-341. Wyre forest, 87. Yard-lands, 21. See Virgates. Yate, Gloucs., go, 520. Yorkshire, 36, 63, 64, 70, 271, 446, 530, 531; irregular fields in, 103. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY - ‘ STi at yan 4 ay, ! ent ¥ Hei sheet H ! ' H ' eh ‘ i H wi { \ ‘ “ i y ‘ ‘ i pipes Y i ‘ ' H \ A 4 it H i i} . * $ 1] ri q ’ 4 vj ro 7 ; ahs "i bf i ? , ee: as